I stand corrected. I just read the review of the book. Erwin was writing to nonbelievers.

I wish I could delete my comment.

Only believers seek God. The Scriptures are clear.
That being said,
I find this statement problematic;

“I invite you to engage in an exploration of the human spirit, to journey deep inside yourself and search out the mystery of the universe that exists with you…”

No offense but, that is not seeking God. Such a notion cannot be found in Scripture.
Don’t be so intent to discredit the “watchblogs” that you fail to call McManus to account.
Whether one calls him a heretic or not, he needs to explain his statement.

One can “explain” a book without clarifying specific statements.
This is more or less what is done to the bible on a daily basis.

Matt,
What are your conclusions about what Mcmanus means, now that you know that he was addressing unbelievers?

Tim,
The last few weeks I have immersed myself in scripture, as well as in Wiccan and other neo-pagan philosiphies, the latter because I’m hoping to help someone who seems to be becoming indoctrinated with such ideas. Mcmanus statement resonates better with the latter part of my “immersion” that it does with my immersion in scripture. many of the “non-scripture” resources I’ve been reading already accept what Mcmanus is saying.

I do believe even many discerning ten year olds who have been taught basic scripture could see a potential problem with Mcmanus statement. I don’t mean that as an ugly slam to anyone who sees it differently; it’s simply a statement of fact. Knowing scripture and recognizing philosophies that go against that scripture is something that all Christians should strive for.

Amy,
As I pointed out before, for some reason only a small minority of people interpret what McManus says as heretical to the point of being anti-Biblical (and that small minority tends to all come from the same theological tradition). Everyone else falls into the category of Matt B where there are certain problems seen, but hardly to the point of claiming that McManus teaches Wicca more than Christianity.

I would suggest that the reason McManus ruffles so many of those particular feathers is because he doesn’t communicate the exact same way as his critics. He doesn’t use their key words, and so they throw a fit over it. It comes down *sigh*, once again to placing tradition on the same level of scripture.

Nathan,
The times do not dictate the message.
We do not have a void waiting to be filled. Where in scripture do we read that? My Bible says no one seeks God. They will seek after anything or anyone but Yahweh.
If it was simply a matter of filling a void, then we would not have need of a savior who atones for us by his heath, blood and resurrection, and we would have no need to be born again, a new creation. or even reckoning ourselves to be dead, a term which in the Greek means that we in fact dead. He took us with Him. This is significantly beyond “void filling theology”

Chris P,

The times do not dictate the message

Agreed

Nathan: So many people treat salvation like a sales pitch. If they say the right things, then people will realize they want Him and accept Him. However, in a postmodern era that strategy is proving to be more and more fruitless.

Agreed, as well.

The method is not the message. In the modern era, systematic arguments were the most effective means to convey a message. In both the post-modern and the first century eras, it is stories/narrative forms which often are most effective means – the picture (whether real or figurative) carries much more weight than the words.

I think that criticisms of both PD and EC teaching methods miss this point.

Chris P,

Where is your mind located?

Seriously…

The bible teaches we are to have our mind renewed by the Word… is your mind outside you body? Outside you person at all… or is it you inner being?

Seriously, it seems you are ready to criticize instead internalize…

The truly problematic thing I see again and again from your style of critiquing is what is on the surface… and seems to not go much deeper… It seems the outside of the cup is of more concern that the inside of the cup… hmmm could that be the contrast again of the inner being you say is not referenced at all in scripture…

I could go on but maybe that is enough to help you see beyond the outer man and maybe acknowledge that scripture is more concerned with our inner being than you realize.

Be blessed,
iggy

Nathan says, “I would love to hear some sources of Wiccan theology that says God has placed longings within our hearts that can only be satisfied through Jesus Christ.”

You won’t find that in Wiccan as far as I know. But you will find in much current philosophy (and I’m not really qualified to separate Wiccan from every other neo-pagan philosophy, so I won’t try) are ideas that promote this idea: ” . . . we have a better chance of finding God in the universe within us than in the one that surrounds us. And it is on this path that I invited you to walk with me. I invite you to engage in an exploration of the human spirit, to journey deep inside yourself and search out the mystery of the universe that exists with you…”

Tacking “Jesus” onto unscriptural viewpoints doesn’t make those viewpoints biblical.

God was never anywhere close, literally or metaphorically, “in the universe within myself” before Jesus washed me of my sin that separated me from Him. I could have explored the depths of my human spirit to infinity and not found Him, before I was washed with His blood. To teach people that they can find Him by searching inside of themselves is simply, WRONG. To focus into looking inside of one self for divinity is Pagan. Period.

Interpreting “the kingdom of God is within you” as Mcmanus has is an interpretation that doesn’t fit the rest of scripture. It does however fit very well into unbiblical beliefs about “god within.”

iggy
I haven’t a clue what you are talking about as I did not say what you claim I am saying. Par for the course for you though.

Tim,
Who is this “everyone else” that you keep referring to?

As for the interpretations that this is talking about everyone having a void that needs to be filled, (which interpretation must be taking into account more than the quote given by 9 marks?) I will simply be lazy and quote Chris P: “If it was simply a matter of filling a void, then we would not have need of a savior who atones for us by his death, blood and resurrection, and we would have no need to be born again, a new creation. or even reckoning ourselves to be dead, a term which in the Greek means that we in fact dead. He took us with Him. This is significantly beyond “void filling theology” ”

If man is essentially looking at “god within,” then is there, somewhere, deep in ever man, a natural hatred, aversion to his sin? I thought people sinned because their natural desire was to do what self wants. I thought they sinned because their desire to meet their own needs was GREATER than their desire to obey God. And I thought that that was a Biblical idea, not a “traditional” idea.

Do one of the young boys who recently gang raped a mother and forced her 12-year old son to do the same, the one who SMILED when he was captured, need to look deep within his mysterious human spirit to see his longing for God, or does he need to understand, through God’s Spirit, that there is NO good within Him, but that Jesus is willing to forgive Him for what he has done?

“If it was simply a matter of filling a void, then we would not have need of a savior who atones for us by his death, blood and resurrection, and we would have no need to be born again, a new creation. or even reckoning ourselves to be dead, a term which in the Greek means that we in fact dead. He took us with Him. This is significantly beyond “void filling theology” ”

You’re going to have to go into the why here. That is a huge non sequiter.

Merely having a God-shaped void doesn’t atone for our sin, nor does it make it spiritually alive.

In fact a God shaped void can be seen as a direct result of sin and the death it brings. Sin separated us from God, for who we were created to be with. Sin enters the world and brings with it death, we were created to never experience death, now that we have experienced death we know there is something deeply and terribly wrong. Notice all the emphasis on health, and yearning to avoid death indefininetly at every turn, even in fictional accounts (not to mention in many non-Christian religions). If this isn’t a God shaped void (or at least a yearning for things the way God meant them to be) then what it is?

robby,

I would agree, as well…

I hesitated going into the modernist/postmodernist argument just because of the labels involved, but as these are two different thought processes (rather than lumped groups), I chose to use them.

Is it possible to have a conversation on the subject w/o denigrating to name-calling (or broad-based assumptions)? As I read the original post, I would have an issue with the McManus quote if it were the only thing said on the subject. However, it seems that what the 9Marks review has done is eisogeted the quote apart from the body of work in such as way as to misrepresent the entire body of work.

This is often the case with criticism of emerging authors (like McManus) and cutting edge authors (like Bell, who won’t claim the emerging label for a number of reasons). Their writing style is a narrative one and not a logically-linear one.

In the systematic style, a hypothesis is first laid out. Then, evidence is brought forth to support it, finishing with a summation which may (or may not) contain a surprising or provocative application.

In a narrative style, an opening thought is often introduced which is surprising or provocative. Then, time is spent giving background and narrative in a way to deconstruct the opening thought. Finally, a summation is given which reflects the actual thesis of the story.

So, for example, when Rob Bell wanted to discuss how faith in God goes beyond just having faith in the Bible, and how we also have to have faith that those who canonized the Bible codified all of the correct writings (for instance), and that we have to have faith that God is leading us today, he started with a provocative statement (in VE):

This is part of the problem with continually insisting that one of the absolutes of the Christian faith must be a belief that “Scripture alone” is our guide. It sounds nice but it is not true.

Then, he built a narrative around this:

In reaction to abuses by the church, a group of believers during the time called the Reformation claimed that we only need the authority of the Bible. But the problem is that we got the Bible from the church voting on what the Bible even is. So, when I affirm the Bible as God’s word, in the same breath I have to affirm that when those people voted, God was somehow present, guiding them to do what they did. When people say that all we need is the Bible, it is simply not true.

Then, he reaches a summation (which in modernist writing, would have been his thesis):

In affirming the Bible as inspired, I have to affirm the Spirit who I believe was inspiring those people to choose those books.65 Where they binding and loosing the Bible itself?
At some point we have to have faith. Faith that God is capable of guiding people. Faith that God has not left us alone. Faith that the same Spirit who guided Paul and Peter and those people in a room in the 300s is still with us today. Guiding us, showing us, and enlightening us.

Now, when someone with a modernist mindset reviews this passage, they will read the opening statement and react as if it were the thesis of the argument. Thus conditioned, if they have allowed pre-suppositions to taint their review, they will ignore the remaining narrative, and cite only the first paragraphs to “prove” that Bell does not believe sola Scriptura, when a full reading of the section and chapter does not render the same conclusion.

With the McManus passage above, it seems that the interpretation by 9Marks of the eisogeted quote is not in concert with the thesis of the overall work (which would make the 9Marks argument a straw-man, if this is the case).

Additionally, suggesting that McManus should have addressed the specific sentence(s) in his podcast is somewhat disingenuous, unless someone was questioning him about that particularly paragraphs.

Nathan,
You said, “if you are going to argue against the fact that every human heart is in desperate need for God and actually craves Him, then we will part paths theologically. ”

Every human heart is in desperate need for God. Every human heart does not crave Him.

What do you mean “actually crave?” I guess you mean that this is happeneing subconsciously. This implies that the human heart is basically good, and wanting what is right. Yet scripture says that the heart of man is desperately wicked. Deceittful.

Isn’t there even a passage that says that the heart of man craves evil? I’m not sure of that . . .

No, this is the one book by McManus that I haven’t read. Amy, have you read the book?

Robby,

I actually think I answered Chris P very nicely and sincerely… I think he took it wrong in “Where is your mind located?” to his assertion that there is no scripture dealing with “looking within ones self and searching the mystery of the universe that is with us…

His response was really a put down and he gave no answer…

So, I guess that I do not agree that Chris P just asked a question and then was called a “watch-poodle” as some of us did try, but were told he had no understanding of what I was talking about with a put down…

I never called him a name at all… Yet Chris P reacted as he always has.

Be Blessed,
iggy

Julie,

That’s a far more reasonable position than the one taken by the watchbloggies.

Matt,
No, I haven’t read the book. And my point in asking if anyone had was that I have been wondering if people are taking Nathan’s interpretation of the book as what the book means, because the conversation switched to the interpretation that he gave rather than the paragraph brought up by nine marks.

I have studied “kingdom” in scripture, not thoroughly, but enough to know that the interpretation of “kingdom of God is within you” as “implying is that we have a better chance of finding God in the universe within us than in the one that surrounds us. And it is on this path that I invited you to walk with me. I invite you to engage in an exploration of the human spirit, to journey deep inside yourself and search out the mystery of the universe that exists with you…” is not supported by any other scriptures.

As I said before Matt, I have read a lot of stuff like this paragraph, by people who are not Christians. I find it difficult to try to attach any biblical meaning to this paragraph. And if I had a reason to read any book by an author who was claiming to be Christian with this sort of thinking in it, I would be on my guard the whole time.

God is NOT in the “universe” inside of any Christian. Why would any Christian want to defend such an idea? Why must you call a Christian who has a problem with this idea a “watchpuppy,” Tim? And why DIDN’T you have a problem with what Julie said? If you already had her classified as a watchpuppy wouldn’t you have been disturbed by her words: “I get creeped out when people start telling me to look inside me to find some glorious something or other that will lead me out or amaze or guide or what have you.”

Tim,
I’ve been condemned on this site for “visceral reactions” . . . you should have been around to support me.

You say that, “The premise of the book is that God has placed within human beings certain cravings that can only be satisfied by Him.” Maybe this is true; I haven’t read the book. Nathan actually goes beyond this in his assessment. He says that “every human heart . . . actually craves Him.” I’m going to assume that Nathan has learned this from Mcmanus.

You and Nathan are saying two different things. Who is right about what Mcmanus is actually teaching? Do you believe that Nathan is also misinterpreting Mcmanus? If so, then what he is doing is no different than what 9 marks did.

Nathan’s interpretation is closer to 9 marks interpretation than yours is, and both of their interpretations back up the paragraph about looking into oneself to find God.

No matter what the premise of the book is, the statement “… that we have a better chance of finding God in the universe within us than in the one that surrounds us . . . ” is not biblical.

Aside from the issue of whether or not 9marks is correctly interpreting what Mcmanus is teaching, isn’t the whole “god within us” idea something that should make the Christian beware? And shouldn’t Christians be free to be concerned about such teaching?

“It’s inside the body that the Mysteries reside.” I came across this quote a couple of weeks ago. And on the site that quoted it, they also mention Christ, even the divinity of Christ I believe. Another part of this teaching is that the “womb is the center of divinity.” The place I found this quote (pregnantearth.com) has a section about Jesus. It’s part of “oneness” teaching, and part of “mother-goddess” teaching.

The “god within” idea and other ideas that Mcmanus teaches are common outside of Chrstian teaching.

The only way to support Mcmanus interpretation of Jesus statement “the kingdom of God is within you” is to assume that Jesus was telling the Pharisees themselves that the kingdom of God was within them. Surely that interpretation cannot be backed up from any scriptures.

amy,

Does scripture deny that people crave meaning, intimacy and destiny? Do you deny that God meets those three cravings?

As stated, THAT is the premise of the book.

Amy,

You wrote:

I honestly can’t think of any scripture that supports the idea that everyone’s soul is craving God.

I can think of an entire book within the Bible that is about nothing but that: Ecclesiastes

The entire premise, lived out by Solomon, is that we have cravings which have been hard-wired into us and that even if we get everything we believe we crave, we will not find meaning and happiness apart from God.

I think we are getting into a predestination vs free will debate here. Since Christians on both sides haven’t been able to resolve that matter for the past 2K years, I’m not sure we can here.

Todd,
Is that the premise of the book? Nathan hasn’t put it that way and he is with Mcmanus on a sometimes daily basis. Nathan is saying that unregenerate souls crave God Himself. And Mcmanus, according to Nathan, (if I’m understanding him right) is saying that people need to look within themselves to find this craving for God. According to Mcmanus, in the much discussed paragraph, people need to look within themselves not just to find that craving for God, but to find God. (I’ll take that last statement back if Nathan can answer my question: ““How can we find God in the universe within us if He isn’t there in the first place?”)

Can you can give me some scriptures that support these statements, addressed to non-Christians:
1) The Bible shows us that “we have a better chance of finding God in the universe within us than in the one that surrounds us.”
2) The Bible shows us that we are to “engage in an exploration of the human spirit, to journey deep inside (ourselves)”
3) The Bible shows us that we are to “to journey deep inside yourself and search out the mystery of the universe that exists in (us)”
4) The above three ideas are what Jesus was talking about when he said that “the kingdom of God is within you”
5) The Bible says that unregenerate souls are craving God.

As for your assessment of the book’s premise, I’m not sure I can respond to it well but I’ll try. Unregenerate souls crave meaning apart from God, intimacy apart from God, and destiny apart from God. God doesn’t meet their ungodly cravings. People who crave Godly meaning, Godly intimacy, and Godly destiny, are people who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

I’m not sure I’m happy with that answer and would like to think on it some more, but that’s the best I can come up with for now.

Amy, is it possible to not believe in predestination and still be a Christian?

Nathan,
The questions keep changing? Is that in response to my asking Iggy to clarify how the “design of dependency” is in the saved and unsaved? Seems like a fair question.

Can anyone respond to these questions? Show me where
1) The Bible shows us that “we have a better chance of finding God in the universe within us than in the one that surrounds us.”
2) The Bible shows us that we are to “engage in an exploration of the human spirit, to journey deep inside (ourselves)”
3) The Bible shows us that we are to “to journey deep inside yourself and search out the mystery of the universe that exists in (us)”
4) The above three ideas are what Jesus was talking about when he said that “the kingdom of God is within you”
5) The Bible says that unregenerate souls are craving God

Nathan,
Please read more carefully.

You said, “You have made accusations against a minister of the word (McManus) that he is practicing Wiccan theology without even reading his material.” But I have not made such accusations. As I have said before, the thinking in that paragraph resonates with some Wiccan/neo-pagan ideas. He may be “practicing some neo-pagan theology.” But I have not said so.

“I find it funny that you have money to buy Wiccan reading material” I did not buy that book, I got it free at the local library, as I clearly stated.

Could you answer this question? You said, “He did not say that God is in all of us. He said that we have e better chance of FINDING God in the universe within us.” How can we find God in the universe within us if He isn’t there in the first place?

Psalm 42 was written by someone who had to sacrifice at the temple. They were not regenerate. Because of the death and burial of Jesus, we are regenerate and no longer have to sacrifice. Christ is the sacrifice.

Christians always have the HS, another sign of being regenerate. The writer of Psalm 42 did not.

[Caution: A bit of hyperbole to follow in a lazy attempt to both recap, critique, and make somewhat clear observations]

BLOG A: JOHN DOE wrote “A Big Cow” (ABC). In three sentences out of the five thousand within ABC, John said XYZ.* Now, by XYZ (which you can see is wrong), John really meant PDQ**. Therefore he is apostate and is bound for hell.

Please don’t read anything he’s written, and proceed with slandering him and his so-called “Christian” followers. Shelling commences in 5…4…3…

*If you have read ABC, please ignore that XYZ and our interpretation of XYZ have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual thesis of ABC and that we have pulled it in out of context.

**We don’t like John Brown’s hair, music or his church, and even if ABC didn’t state PDQ explicitly, it’s what John meant, whether he knew it or not.  Trust us.  We know.

BLOG B: Here is what was recently written by BLOG A, which is horribly biased and not representative of what John meant.

COMMENTER A: I work with John and BLOG A has not accurately covered what he wrote or what he meant.

COMMENTER B: John should explain himself.

COM A: Why should he have to explain himself every time a nutter takes him out of context? How about the nutter explain himself and why he took John out of context?

BLOG A: (cue chirping crickets)

ALTERNATE BLOG A: You obviously are an unregenerate idiot, or else you would know that God sent me to smite John and his evil writings. Please refer to John 7:24 to see why I’m right. If you ignore me, you’re ignoring God.

COM C: Why did John write XYZ?

COM A: ABC is about QWERTY, and XYZ as “explained” by BLOG A is a total distortion.

COM C: I just read a book about navel-gazing and XYZ sounds like navel-gazing.

COM A: Did I mention that I work with John and that I’m not sure he’s even got a navel? His book is about QWERTY, and XYZ is a completely incomplete thought.

COM C: So why did he say XYZ then?

COM A: It is an incomplete thought. What about story GHJ in the Bible?

COM C: What does GHJ have to do with it?

COM D: Here… [detailed explanation follows]

COM C: So why did John write XYZ? It sounds like navel-gazing.

COM A: I work with John and he does not support navel-gazing in any fashion. If you read the entire book instead of the three sentences in BLOG A, you would understand what he meant.

COM C: John wrote XYZ. What if I was a new Christian and I used to be into navel-gazing? Won’t reading ABC lead me back into sin?

COM A: If your friend read ABC, she would see that John is not writing about navel-gazing.

COM C: Then why did John write XYZ?

COM E: Why did BLOG A choose to eisogete XYZ when its obvious that their interpretation was not John’s intent? Why not ask that question?

COM A: Commenter C, Perhaps you should read the book and find out.

COM C: Sorry, I’m reading about navel-gazing right now. And I got it free at the library.

COM A: Maybe you should visit a library that carries John’s book, then, rather than trusting BLOG A to do your thinking for you…

[We now return to the sarcasm and hyperbole-free thread in progress...]

Amy,

I recommend starting from Genesis chapter one verse 1 until Revelations last chapter last verse…

The whole bible is about Jesus and our need for him… both saved and unsaved. I guess I am confused that you miss Jesus;’ own statements of dependency in John Chapter 5.

So, please instead show me a verse that states this is not true.

Be blessed,
iggy

Amy,

In fact i have at least two or three times pointed you to

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22: Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
23. and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen.

Notice that though they knew God (though not in a way one saved does) the exchanged being dependant on God (THE TRUTH) for a lie (a poor substitute for God and His Truth).

I will add another verse.

In Luke 18: we have the story of the Pharisee, who is symbolic of the “righteous” and a tax collector who is thought to be unsaved…. yet it is the tax collector that cries out, “`God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ ” showing that he as a lost person had a craving for God and His Mercy…

I shall go on…

Romans 9 is a great chapter that shows that God has chosen the vessels of wrath to be now vessels of mercy… and some of the vessels of mercy will be vessels of wrath. In the end Paul points out “That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.” As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” ”

It seems that as God calls the Gentiles responded as they recognized their need for God… they in fact saw that the cravings of their spirit was better than that of their flesh.

I will go on…

In 1 John 2:29 john speaks of the “cravings of a sinful man” this is the misplaced cravings that are dependant on something other than God as I spoke.

It is how we are to live as Jesus Himself stated in John 5:19
“I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.”

Jesus was dependant on the Father as we should be in Him… in that is the missing ingredient in a unsaved persons cravings… as i have stated, that they exchange this truth with a lie.

Be Blessed,
iggy

Amy,

First off you stated i am putting words in your mouth…no… I am clarifying statements… so please let’s not start the “you are putting words in my mouth” thing.

The thing is by my statement IN CONTEXT was, “The whole bible is about Jesus and our need for him… both saved and unsaved.” in which we were discussing whether an unsaved person “craved” God and replaced this “need” with other things.

In that your constant replies to prove this left me with the impression that you did not see that an unsaved person need to be dependant on God… which was a bit confusing… but that would be the other view.

This is also the point that is being discussed, that one can take a statement out of context and infuse our own understanding into without realizing it… it seems pretty easy to do.

Let’s do this…

You stated here: “…we have a better chance of finding God in the universe within us than in the one that surrounds us. And it is on this path that I invited you to walk with me.”

Note this is just taken from a statement you made… but i want you to see how some often build from a statement like this in the middle of a discussion or book or article… and take it to mean the opposite… I AM NOT SAYING YOU BELIVE THIS OR STATED IT TO MEAN IT THIS WAY… this is only an illustration.

So, lets take a look at your statement… here is a mock article that will show what we are talking about.

“…we have a better chance of finding God in the universe within us than in the one that surrounds us. And it is on this path that I invited you to walk with me.”

I was shocked when i read Amy make this statement in the comments. How can she believe this” She believes we can find God in the Universe within us, than in the one that surround us? Not only that she is telling people to walk with her on this “journey”. Doesn’t she know that this is what pagans believe?

I will stop there, as I think that the point is clear that one can take a part of a comment and turn it into the opposite that it was intended. I cannot tell you how much this happens to me and to others in my “camp”.

Now, again it is not about McManus being above questioning, rather if he is to be questions, would it not be better to have the question reflect what he means and is stating instead of just using the statement to make up a ridiculous statement about what someone THINKS they know about what he stated?

I mean we would not do this to the bible… why do it to a brother in Christ Jesus.

In fact I have faced this so often that I cannot tell you how often someone tells me what I believe and then calls me a liar when i say that is not so.

Be Blessed,
iggy

“It can stand alone, and it can’t be supported from Scripture.”

Maybe you all should add a statement of beliefs to your site. It could say, either:
) We believe that “we have a better chance of finding God in the universe within us than in the one that surrounds us.”
2) We believe that we should “engage in an exploration of the human spirit, to journey deep inside (ourselves)”
3) We believe that we should “ journey deep inside (ourselves) and search out the mystery of the universe that exists in (us)”
4) We believe that the above three ideas are what Jesus was talking about when he said that “the kingdom of God is within you”
5) We believe that the Bible says that unregenerate souls are craving God.

Along with that statement you could find some new symbols to add to your web page. How about “new-age friendly” “bible-believing shunned” “neo-pagan.”

or, if you don’t like those ideas, simply write:
1)We believe that some beliefs held by certain men, though unbiblical, should not be addressed because of who these men are.

Matt,
If you want to write an article on the differences of the state of men who belonged to God before Christ versus after Christ, and an indepth discussion of the word “regenerate” then be my guest.

Amy,

“Unregenerate souls crave meaning apart from God, intimacy apart from God, and destiny apart from God. God doesn’t meet their ungodly cravings. People who crave Godly meaning, Godly intimacy, and Godly destiny, are people who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit.”

By this narrow definition you have I think you still miss the point…

1. Can a person who does not know Jesus want and crave intimacy?
2. If we look at the at your “Godly destination” I see that this in itself shows a very narrow view of salvation… but instead of trying to explain that I will just say that people do want some sort of destination, be it power, fame, money, prestige or whatever one can replace this “Godly destination” with.

With that using your own definition, I am stating that this craving for God is confused and replace by desires of the flesh. It is a corruption of the true craving we have for God.

If that still makes no sense… I give up.

as far as the verses, again the whole of scirpture is the story of God creating man for a purpose and putting His Spirit in man, man losing that life giving spirit as he gave into the cravings of the flesh, and God working with man to bring man to his original proposed Godly cravings. Romans states creation groans for the revealing of the Sons of God so it also has its own cravings for God. Note man is part of this creation also… so creation cries out for its freedom from bondage to death and decay.

Also, as far as the example I tried to use… it is the basic idea that one cannot just take a sentence out of a discussion and build from it accusations as are built on against Mcmanus.

I could just have taken this quote from you that has nothing to do with Mcmanus…

“That’s not what scripture says. Scripture says that Christ himself is a stumblingblock to unbelievers. And that noone can come to Christ unless the FATHER draws them.” quote Amy.

Taking your quote here rather random from a post a few months back lets jam into this context…

Does Amy think that God is some sort of artist in heaven with a big pencil doing drawings!? how ridiculuos is that to think that the Creator of the universe is sitting around with a pencil “drawing all men”. Also, Amy is quoting scripture as saying this… is this a paraphrase? I know of no scripture that states this as she quoted… and one more thing… what is a “noone”? Is she stating that only at noon we can come to Jesus? Boy this is really messed up.

Amy, I am exaggerating a bit, but if you took the time to look at the your own quote in context, it is about American Idol… can you believe that?

So we must be careful not to just take a sentence from somewhere and then explain it as we see fit.

Be Blessed,
iggy

Amy,

I am currently torn on whether to answer your questions, which Iggy (and others, including myself) have already done. The primary problem is that, ignoring the early discussion on narrative versus systematic/analytical forms, you continue to insist on a systematic/analytical defense of a small piece of a narrative work.

I do not have a copy of the book, nor have I had time to go look one up. However, I do have Nathan, who understands the narrative and the author first hand and has given a satisfactory answer for any concern I might have held. I also have a personal friend, who is also an intellectual, who reads McManus, with whom I’ve discussed various issues regarding him and his books, at length.

So – at this point, trying to give you a systematic answer to what is a fragment of a narrative is rather pointless (and plays right into the flawed methodology of the watchdawggies), because I do not have the full narrative, and I am rest assured that you’ll have a “bad feeling” about it, regardless of whether my defense is ironclad or not. You have already proven that you’re willing to assume the worst of McManus, and that you’ll play GBA to a fare-thee-well with him. So really, what’s the point?

At this point, if you want a systematic answer, the onus is on you and any questions you have, to first go to a bookstore or a library and read the entire narrative in which this eisogeted comment is contained.

Now, to your observations:

Do you always run to the library to check out the book being discussed before asking any questions/observations about it?

If I am going to be critical of passages therein, actually, I do. If it is a book I would not mind on my bookshelf, like Velvet Elvis, I will purchase it. If it is a book I wouldn’t want to be seen on my bookshelf, like MacLaren or MacArthur, I will either check it out at the library or – more often – walk down to Borders over lunch a couple days and give it a read/skim.

What I won’t do, though, is pull a single quote and try to make it the sum total of what the book is about, and then make silly pronouncements like “We believe that some beliefs held by certain men, though unbiblical, should not be addressed because of who these men are” when people disagree with my eisogesis.

A person DOES NOT have to read a whole work to ask questions about a concept that is presented therein. The questions I’ve asked should have answers, biblical ones, if they are biblical statements.

If they are going to treat a quote from a quote from the book as the sum total, then perhaps they would be better off reading the book (or at least the quote in context) before assuming that a Christian is taking an unbiblical stand. Your questions have not been in good faith, and have started from an assumption of this being the sum total – thus ignoring Nathan’s statements on the overall narrative.

So, until you’ve read the quote in the context of the book, you need no more answer and there is nothing to prattle on as being “unbiblical”, because – just as you pointed out with Iggy’s example – we have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER of the context of this particular quote, or even if it is McManus quoting McManus.

You should be thinking and analyzing and checking what a person says with scripture instead of mocking.

You should have the complete context of what someone has said before you accuse them of being unbiblical.

Now – with all that said, I will attempt one more time to give a narrative defense of a narrative work. McManus has stated that man has been ‘wired’ in such a way as to be incomplete, and to search for a means with which to find ‘completeness’. In the Bible, this is demonstrated in a number of places:

In Genesis, God creates man for His pleasure to be in community with Him. When man tries to find other ways to fill this need – with the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil – this relationship is scarred.

In Ecclesiastes, Solomon examines all of the ways in which man tries to meet this innate need apart from God, and finds that all of them are meaningless.

Paul examines the evidence of Creation. I would do the same, in looking at the history of man and the repeating story of men who try to pursue earthly things apart from God only to find meaninglessness. I also look at native cultures which have not known God, but who – by the witness of creation – realize that there is someone who is above us and apart from us – even though they do not know Him or His Son.

Now, I suppose I could try to play your game of “gotcha” by smearing a brother via systematic analysis of a small portion of a narrative work, but if I’m going to waste my time, I’d rather try to analyze music with a telescope…

Nathan,
I don’t understand passion disconnected from a willingness to explain why something someone has said is scriptural if it is actually scriptural.

The paragraph I keep bringing up is a paragraph that many, many Christians would choke over, no matter what the context. It has meaning in and of itself. How do you support what he is saying with scriptures? And how can a person FIND God in the universe within them if God isn’t already there?

From Tim’s article:

The basic premise of the book is not that all humans are seeking God. The premise of the book is that God has placed within human beings certain cravings that can only be satisfied by Him.

NOTE: Addressing the narrative of the entire work, not the eisogesis of three sentences.

The examples given by Iggy, myself and others all point to the premise of the narrative of the book – NOT that everyone craves God, but that everyone has cravings (given by God) which can only be filled by Him, though they attempt to do so elsewhere.

I’m was not going to address the single paragraph (nor did Tim) because it is an incomplete thought. However, since you are insistent on smelling colors and painting smells, I might as well give it a shot, realizing that I have read as much of the book as you have, which is to say, none of it. However, rather than begin with an assumption of bad faith toward a brother, as you have done, I will start from an assumption of good faith. Particularly in light of the witness of those doing the accusing…

Since McManus is referring to the Kingdom within us, I am assuming that – based on an understanding of Jesus’ teaching of the Kingdom of God – he is not referring to a universe within each individual or something ‘new agey’, but within “us” (a community). The Kingdom of God exists wherever the rule and will of God is in force within His people.

Now, at the end of the paragraph, he shifts to the individual journey. So, based on what I know of the overall narrative of the book, I expect that it will explore that we have needs which we try to fill, and that those needs were given by God.* Then, I expect that he will explore the ways in which we try to fill those needs apart from God. Finally, I expect that he will show how the God who created those cravings is the only thing which ‘fits’ with meeting them.

*Rich Mullins and Beaker had a weekend seminar they taught called “What you Want, What you Need, and What you Settle For”. They identified the three “needs” given by God as the need for love, the need to be right, and the need for purpose” (noting that this was several years before PDC was written). This seminar followed a similar theme of us trying to fill needs given by God via means without Him.

As I read it, 9Marks mostly takes offense with McManus due to a difference in Calvinist/Arminian philosophical points, noting that the author damns C. S. Lewis for the same reason as the cited paragraph from McManus. Then, coupled with your insistence on “regenerate” vs. “non-regenerate” people seeking God, when the Bible makes no such distinction except via eisogesis which ignores the whole Old Testament, it is no wonder that the questions of your belief in predestination vs. free will were brought up in question (though I agreed with your answer that neither extreme seems to be correct).

As Tim points out from Paul, “God has written the Law on everyone’s heart so that they are left without excuse”. The Law is more than a list of do’s and don’ts. If you can’t see this and that it answers your question, then that is your problem to work out, not ours.

You also wrote:

Nor do I understand a passion for the gospel that demonstrates itself in such anger towards people who talk about sharing the gospel, such as you have done with Val and I.

What a complete non-sequitur. Correlation does not equal causation, otherwise we could make the same statement about you and Ken…

Amy,

You missed the point, we are not saying an unbeliever can find God within himself… but that an unbeliever has a “craving for God” but may replace it with other stuff…

I have given more than enough scirpture to support this… but it seems that you cannot see beyond your own view.

So you are saying that though Romans 1 states of the unbeliever:

“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.”

Notice these things.

1. Since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen,

As I stated beginning in Genesis chapter one verse one… “God divine nature has been clearly seen in creation itself.” A man can look at creation and realize within himself (the universe of his own mind) that there is a Creator.

2. Man is without excuse. Even fallen man should be able to see this for it is “clearly seen in creation itself”.

3. “For although they knew God,” Man once knew God and man can still know God if they took time to look at creation and then within themselves that there is a Creator. Note the words used such as seen, understood, knew that are used, these are about man’s mind… which is what our inner universe would be.

4. “they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.” Notice here that the did not glorify God or give thanks, but “their thinking became futile” again that is within the mind and “their foolish hearts were darkened” again also the heart is the inner being or universe of a man.

Note this passage is about unsaved people…

So as I have pointed out if you had bothered to read this chapter I referred to at least 4 or more times you might see this.

So, I am not sure why you insist that there is not a verse that states

“Iggy’s scriptures do not support the claim that everyone craves God. Your examples do not support the claim that everyone craves God.”

It is that man chooses his own way and desires (which is another word for cravings or craves.) instead of Gods. They still have this inner desire to worship something… and choose to worship and fulfill that “craving/desire” with false idols.

And a false idol can be anything that replaces God.

Be Blessed,
iggy

Jesus said that the kingdom of God is within us….It seems what he is implying is that we have a better chance of finding God in the universe within us than in the one that surrounds us. And it is on this path that I invited you to walk with me. I invite you to engage in an exploration of the human spirit, to journey deep inside yourself and search out the mystery of the universe that exists with you…

Interpreting the kingdom of God within us as “us” community does not fit the context of the paragraph. If the kingdom is within the community why must one journey “deep inside oneself?”

You interpret this as, “Now, at the end of the paragraph, he shifts to the individual journey.” Very unlikely, this “shift.” Especially since the whole book is apparently about looking into one’s individual soul.

“Then, coupled with your insistence on “regenerate” vs. “non-regenerate” people seeking God . . . ”

Really, Chris, my “insistence?” I don’t think you would have even noticed that word if Matt didn’t keep bringing it up. I don’t know the absolute meaning of regenerate, I don’t know which word(s) are translated that way, I don’t know which words aren’t translated that way that maybe should be, I don’t know how whatever word(s) are translated as regenerate relate to other words translated as “sanctification,” I don’t know if there is some parallel word in Hebrew, I don’t know if there is a difference in God’s mind in the state of people who belong to God from the OT versus people who belong to God in the NT – thus I have not answered Matt’s question, because I don’t have enough information to know if I have used the term wrong. I imagine there have been dissertations written on it, don’t think it’s something I have time to study right now because it would take me hours to do it adequately and even then I might not come up with an answer, because it’s not just a “meaning of a word” issue, it’s a theological issue as well. I have never seen what it has to do with the “soul searcher” of Psalm 42 as he was obviously someone who belonged to God, and that’s what mattered when Psalm 42 was first brought up.

“As Tim points out from Paul, “God has written the Law on everyone’s heart so that they are left without excuse”. Right. But where is the law ever described as something that makes every soul crave God?

“Nor do I understand a passion for the gospel that demonstrates itself in such anger towards people who talk about sharing the gospel, such as you have done with Val and I.” (my quote to Nathan)

You replied, “What a complete non-sequitur.”

No, indeed.

From wikipedia:

Non sequitur is Latin for “it does not follow.” In formal logic, an argument is a non sequitur if its conclusion does not follow from its premises. In a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is a fallacy because the conclusion does not follow from the premise. All formal fallacies are specific types of non sequitur. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition.

You wrote:

Nor do I understand a passion for the gospel that demonstrates itself in such anger towards people who talk about sharing the gospel, such as you have done with Val and I.

This very question is a non sequitur, as it links Nathan disagreeing with you (and Val) to your talking about sharing the gospel – both completely unrelated issues. It assumes correlation and causation, neither of which have even remotely been shown or proven.

It is like me pointing out that the CO2 level in the atmosphere has increased during the same time period in which the number of pirates in the world has decreased.

Bizarro land – and you do it all the time, though often more subtly than that particular attempt – which was why I posted the link for you.

Now, to the topic at hand.

Nathan wrote (in the article):

The basic premise of the book is not that all humans are seeking God. The premise of the book is that God has placed within human beings certain cravings that can only be satisfied by Him.

Iggy, myself and others have provided more than enough examples of this.

Law – Torah – being written on the hearts of all men is more than rules and regulations. Torah is guidance for a relationship with God. If we believe Paul, it is written on the hearts of all men. There is no contradiction with what Nathan has written. Notice the all before men.

Torah is about relationship, not regulations. The events that transpired in the garden broke the relationship, and man’s efforts have been expended to fill that hole ever since – whether it was to try to usurp God (as with the Tower of Babel) or to fill that ‘hole’ with other “stuff” (as Solomon wrote about in Ecclesiastes). It was not until Jesus came and repaired that relationship that we have had hope to properly fill that which was broken.

Just because you’re confused doesn’t mean that everyone else is. Sorry…

Amy,

When a person craves love… and they sleep around, they are substituting God’s Love for sex…

If a person drinks too much to calm their mind… they are exchanging this with God’s peace.

If a person is angry, they have a fear, perfect love drives out fear, so deep down they fear that no one loves them….

The deepest cravings and desires of all men is Christ in then their hope of Glory. The saddest thing is that many never find the answer of worse when they do reject it.

If you cannot see that this is so, then I think you are missing some real basic foundations in your theology. Not a put down but an observation i have found when talking to people who see that they must somehow live to please God… and find they can’t… they work at it and work at it and fail and live in shame for their lack of performance.

Grace sets us free and Jesus become our very Life and He live His Life in and through us.

That is when we find our rest… in Chirst Jesus who is our sabbath rest.

It is when we recognize that we are in error and turn to truth that we are set free… for the truth sets us free and who the Son set free is free indeed.

Man substitutes this godly calling with error and in that lives in his sin. God gave all men this yearning for the divine… as I pointed out in Romans… “They knew God, but worshipped created things instead.”

So, again, if you miss this you are missing a very basic foundational teaching concerning evangelism. Once you grasp this you will be able to see Jesus in the lowliest of sinners… and God will guide you to truly guide that person out of death into Life.

Be blessed,
iggy

Nathan,
People should look in themselves and see depravity. Is that truly what the book means? Maybe you can pull something out of it that demonstrates that.

It is essentially because man is depraved that I have such a hard time accepting what you’ve said several times: “That every soul craves God.”

I don’t understand how discovering “God in the universe within us” can equal discovering our depravity. Depravity is why God is nowhere in us.

I could just never say, “They have a better chance at finding God in the depravity within themselves” He’s not there. He cannot exist with depravity. Jesus died, so that the Holy Spirit could be “within” us.

Todd says, “The premise of Soul Cravings is not that every human craves God, but that they crave meaning, destiny and intimacy. All three of those things are found in God.”

This is quite different from saying that man looks inside himself and sees that he is depraved. To be honest, that sounds more like other stuff I’ve heard Mcmanus say.

Maybe you can come up with some quotes from the book sometime that talk about depravity.

As for being the “minority” in the discussion, I can deal with having a different opinion than everyone else. But everything that I pointed out in that comment is true and I wanted to present it, because it is true. It’s one thing to SAY a person is welcome to a discussion. It’s quite another thing to constantly remind the person in the minority that “they haven’t read the book,” and so on, instead of actually being willing to address the issues that are brought up. Just look at this discussion alone – look at how my questions were ignored; look at the reasons that have been given for why I shouldn’t be discussing the paragraph. And consider that when I have discussed something I am probably more knowledgeable about than any of you (Rick Warren) that those “parameters” such as reading books, doing research, having practical experience in the matter, which are set for other discussions (rob bell, mcmanus) are no longer valid.

I think that if you look at practically everyone who has come on this site disagreeing you will see how what they are saying is rarely or never actually taken into consideration.

I am not upset personally. Usually I am pretty amazed and amused by how people handle comments they disagree with. There are numerous ways for a person to rationalize not listening to a valid point and I think the “abuse of minorities” happens as a result of people giving themselves an excuse not to listen and consider.

The way disagreement is handled, it leads one to wonder if people are being set up as “God’s annointed,” above reproach. And that is a serious matter.

Chris,
How could you have made the judgement that my comment was a non-sequitir without looking for the basis of it in the first place? You just assumed there wasn’t a basis, didn’t you? The comment really had nothing to do with you.

The comment was in reference to where I talked about my project. I’m not sure where – maybe in the long discussion of yoga. The comment with Val was recent. I made a reference to Nathan’s previous attack there as well. Be sure to look at the whole discussion in both cases and if you’re going to tear me apart over it some detail of it, be equally judgemental of Nathan.

There are many things that Mcmanus has said that are just as “new-agey” as the paragraph I’ve been looking at. If a Christian can’t look at that paragraph and go “what?” and ask questions about it without being judged, and without thinking, “Oh, I have to rush out and buy Mcmanus’ book so I can comment on this!”something is wrong.

By the way, I have books that I need to buy, books for my kids schooling, that I can’t buy. You expectation of buying books before entering a discussion is ridiculous. Even if I could afford it, I would have to put off discussing current topics until I received and was able to read the whole book.

Of course, it really wouldn’t make any difference, if I still had a disagreement with you. I would then be instructed that I “didn’t know him personally” or “didn’t attend the church.”

Nathan I find it difficult to believe that if the basic idea of the book is “If you look inside yourself and see that you are depraved, you have a better chance of realizing you have a need. If you realize you have a need, you have a better chance of seeking after the solution. The book says that God is the solution for your depravity. If you seek after God as the solution, you will find Him.” why you would need to “take time to comb thru the book for quotes.” If that is the basic idea of the book, it should be easy to find lots of info to support it, let alone a quote or two.

“Erwin never said that the Holy Spirit is residing within the unregenerate individual.” No, he simply said that we have a better chance of finding God within us than in the universe around us. As I’ve asked you before, how can we find something that isn’t there?

Amy,
What do you believe Bell believes about homosexuality?

I personally pray with the guy that heads up the groups you mention Phil. I’m also in the process of joining the board, so I too would like to know what it is she thinks he thinks.

http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/02/rob-bell-hits-lexington-and-packed-out.html

Maybe you all can discuss this and maybe I’ll come into the discussion later (if it doesn’t end up getting blocked, which has happened with the other homosexuality discussions on this site.)

May I suggest that you look at the Witherspoon site before looking at the rest of my comments.
_______________________________

In response to the “stance” issue, Phil, once anyone says something about an issue or quotes scripture relevant to that issue, then they’ve “taken a stance.” If Witherspoon has correctly represented Bell (and he is not someone who is trying to search for a fault) then Bell has “taken a stance.”

If what Witherspoon says about Bell doesn’t concern you, consider this.

When I read the information, I thought, what if the same “attitude” were taken towards some other specific sexual sin? It’s something to think about.

So, following Bell’s example, we could say,

“You can’t say anything about oral sex before marriage unless you actually know someone who is practicing it, and understand their struggles.”

“Jesus didn’t say anything about oral sex.”

It would be nice to know if, besides saying that the Bible says nothing about sexual orientation (an issue which Witherspoon discusses), whether or not Bell pointed out that the Bible presents homosexuality as a sin. It would appear, from Witherspoon’s comments, that he didn’t.

Personally I believe that the more people including Christians emphasize that homosexual desires are inborn, and the less they emphasize the sin of homosexuality, the less chance there is for people to have Christ help them with whatever temptation they are dealing with.

I think that if lustful thoughts of any kind aren’t dealt with, Satan can use them to destroy a person. What is evil will seem good. If the church in anyway supports this, it is no longer doing the will of Christ.

Personally I believe that Satan is quite capable of “making” someone a homosexual. I see nothing in scripture that prevents the idea of Satan from constantly bombarding a person with lustful thoughts of all types imaginable. If a person gives into those thoughts, he/she can “become” an adulterer, a lesbian, a heterosexual, even someone who wants to or practices bestiality, or lusts after or molests children.

Amy,
First, it’s “Witherington” (or BW3), not “Witherspoon”, just to clarify. I’m not saying that to be petty, just to let you know for future conversation sake.

You are putting words in Bell’s mouth there. Bell’s quote was, “you have no moral authority to speak on this issue unless you have gay friends and understand their struggle”. (well that’s at least BW3’s paraphrase of it). Bell didn’t say “practice”. I believe there is a difference between a person who is struggling with homosexuality someone who completely engaged in the lifestyle. Your example of oral sex, isn’t really applicable here, in fact it’s pretty much a straw man.

I would say that if we are constantly making homosexuality to be the mother-of-all-sins we create an environment where someone who might be struggling with homosexual thoughts or feelings would never feel safe to tell anyone in the church. We could in fact help push that person from a place where he were struggling with the temptation to a place where he becomes entrenched in a lifestyle. People will go where they feel accepted and loved.

Phil,
And thanks for the correction on the name – I have a problem remembering names.

Tim,
Your link didn’t work, so I don’t know what you’re referring to. I didn’t say the discussion was blocked. I said it was “never discussed,” left the possibility open that I had missed it, and mentioned that the two times that I have seen it referred to (once by me and once by you) it hasn’t been discussed.

Amy,

“I didn’t say the discussion was blocked. I said it was “never discussed,” left the possibility open that I had missed it, and mentioned that the two times that I have seen it referred to (once by me and once by you) it hasn’t been discussed.”

Yet you stated this:

“Maybe you all can discuss this and maybe I’ll come into the discussion later (if it doesn’t end up getting blocked, which has happened with the other homosexuality discussions on this site.)”

I am reading that you are saying it was “blocked”.

So which is it?

Just needed some clarifying here.

iggy

Amy,

You wrote:

How could you have made the judgement that my comment was a non-sequitir without looking for the basis of it in the first place? You just assumed there wasn’t a basis, didn’t you? The comment really had nothing to do with you.

First off, it was obviously (and still is obviously) a non-sequitir, as it was completely out of left field in this particular comment thread, and the idea that Nathan would be attacking people because they are sharing the gospel (which your non-sequitir implied) is simply ludicrous. So, as for it “having nothing to do with me”, once you attacked my brother in a specious manner, it had everything to do with me and with this site.

As for homosexuality, we’ve not deleted or “blocked” any discussions on this topic. There are several, including the one linked by Neil.

Here’s one, and notice my similar comment as the one above:

The problem with the way the church – and society – have handled the issue of homosexuality is that, unlike other sins, it is the temptation preceding the sin, iteself, that labels the sinner. Because of this our language is very poor at making this distinction in a meaningful way that will adequately separate the sin from the temptation and the temptation from the sinner.

If John is tempted to steal, but does not do so, we do not call him a thief.

However, if John is tempted with an attraction to other men, but does not act on it, we still call him a homosexual.

Homosexuality – the temptation/attraction to members of the same sex – is not a sin. Acting upon the temptation IS a sin, in the same way that acting upon heterosexual temptation outside of marriage is a sin.

We, the church, do not communicate this distinction effectively – if at all. Society in general, and those who struggle with homosexual temptation, as a result, understand it even less so.

THAT is why this is a topic better discussed in small groups or one-on-one rather than as a public pronouncement.

Here’s another article and discussion on the topic, in which Dan Kimball weighted in on the comments:

http://christianresearchnetwork.info/2007/04/14/try-following-this-logic/

We also discussed it in January. My comment:

When people ask you about your ’stance’ on homosexuality in a public setting, they’re typically in one of two camps:

1) They are Christians looking to see if you are ‘orthodox’, looking to get a public affirmation, which then can be used as a club of sorts. They already know what the scripture says on the topic, and that practicing homosexuality is a sin – the same as lying, stealing, adultery, speeding and cheating on your taxes. However, many of them hold homosexuality as something higher, more insidious, than these other sins.

2) They are active homosexuals, friends of active homosexuals, or someone struggling with homosexual temptations. Often, these people are either searching for help, or looking for initial reasons to reject Christianity.

My friend says that his response to both of these – in public fora – are the same. He won’t answer. In the first case, he won’t feed the beast. In the second case, he won’t give a person a cause to reject Christ before they have heard the message. However, if they wish to follow Christ, his church has a program, similar to Bob’s, which will help individuals struggling with sexual sin (homo-, hereto- and bi-) to leave these sins behind when they accept Christ.

This has not gone undiscussed, and my conversation with the elder at Mars Hill confirmed my supposition of position above.

Iggy, Chris, Tim,

I said, “Maybe you all can discuss this and maybe I’ll come into the discussion later (if it doesn’t end up getting blocked, which has happened with the other homosexuality discussions on this site.)”

The blocking that I was referring to was blocking that my own IPCOP has done. This happened on another discussion which was on homosexuality here, as well as a discussion on nudity. For the previous one on homosexuality, I think that at first I could read a few comments on it, but when I got back to it, it was blocked.The discussion with Dan Kimball that you mentioned above was probably the one that got blocked.

Did you discuss Bell’s position on homosexuality on that thread? That is what I am asking about. I said I brought it up once, and Tim brought it up, but that it hadn’t been discussed.

Chris said,
“First off, it was obviously (and still is obviously) a non-sequitir, as it was completely out of left field in this particular comment thread, and the idea that Nathan would be attacking people because they are sharing the gospel (which your non-sequitir implied) is simply ludicrous.”

If someone on this thread started defending their pastor’s passion for saving whales, and I had heard that same person previously harpooning others who talked about saving whales, and I said I could not understand how that kind of passion, my comment would not be a non-sequitor.

Have you looked up the discussions? Do so, then feel free to discuss the issue with me.

Nathan said, “I know the thread you are talking about. And, never ever attacked you for sharing the gospel. I did say that I had some serious concerns with some of the methods that you were explaining. But, you later explained yourself and we moved on. Hardly attacking you for sharing the gospel.”

You may recall Nathan, that your “serious concerns with some of the methods that I was explaining” were actually false conclusions that you jumped to as soon as I mentioned that I thought it was necessary to share the gospel in my project.

You may also recall that you made some very wrong conclusions about Val.

Amy,

thanks for the clarification(?) But I think that there it was still very easy to see why some might have took it the way you stated it… in fact i am still wondering… as I see no reference to IPCOP in youe original comment.

But whatever… not saying you lied, but that sometimes things can come across wrongly in this type of forum.

Be blessed,
iggy

Again, Amy, highjacked thread.

Matt,
We could actually still be discussing the original article if all of you were willing to present scriptural explanations for the paragraph in question, you know the paragraph that I’m “unqualified” to discuss.

My unqualification brought up my explanation of how the comments work here.

Which brought up my sharing that I feel that people are put up on pedastals (sp?).

Which led to the discussion of Bell.

Is the way the discussion has gone really my fault?

If it had gone the way you seemed to want it to go, we would all be discussing old versus new testament states of the soul of those who belong to God. Wouldn’t that have been hijacking as well?

Joe,
The whales is a reference to the earlier comment I made about Nathan’s passion for the gospel, the one for which Chris is trying to judge as being a non-sequitor (sp?).

Julie,
My Clif’s notes:

Erwin McManus = not a Calvinist = bad

Rob Bell = doesn’t hate homosexuals = bad

Amy,

You’ve perfectly demonstrated the point made here, and by Bell. You wrote:

what biblical precedent is there for not telling them that the Bible shows that homosexuality is a sin?

The Bible does not show that homosexuality is a sin. The Bible shows that committing homosexual acts is a sin. We in the church do a pretty good job separating temptation to sin from acting upon that temptation – except for the glaring inconsistency with homosexuality and homosexual practice – which you just demonstrated.

To be fair, I made the exact same mistake on the January article, until I was corrected by Bob Hyatt and made the correction.

It is this particular glaring inconsistency with American Christianity which makes how we deal with this particular issue one where greater than usual care is required. In the Lexington stop for the Sex God tour, if Witherington’s transcription of Bell’s answer is correct, then Bell gave an inelegant response to describe the actual orthopraxy in the church he leads.

I actually have two people – one an elder in a church about 40 miles from here, and the elder/pastor I spoke to at Mars Hill last year (regarding the sexual addiction recovery group information in their welcome center) – that I have spoken to specifically about the church’s proper response to homosexuality and homosexual sin. It was my local friend who pointed out why a number of ministers have moved to silence from the pulpit on homosexual issues, while dealing with those who struggle with that temptation one-on-one or in small groups, taking care to separate sin from temptation.

The elder from Mars Hill just confirmed that they are very careful with sin vs. temptation, and that when asked to give a public response they basically just say ‘we believe the Bible is authoritative’, rather than potentially driving away people struggling with the temptation who, in their own minds, don’t understand the difference between sin and temptation.

Phil,
You said,
“I said the oral sex argument was a straw man because it is about someone commiting a sinful act that is clearly wrong. Homosexuality seems to be much more complicated because are not talking about just a sinful act, we are talking about something that a person’s whole identity is wrapped up in. It’s going to take more from the Church than just saying, “that’s wrong, quit doing it.”

There is the nuance here that “oral sex is clearly wrong” and “homosexuality is a sinful act plus other considerations” that mean it should be treated differently.

I find that too difficult to agree with, in light of scripture. First of all, interestingly enough, I think that quite a lot of people would argue (wrongly) that oral sex (as we’re both understanding, outside of marriage) is not “clearly” wrong because it is not mentioned specifically in the bible. Thus they give themselves an excuse to continue the behavior they find pleasurable.

Homosexuality is clearly wrong. Period. To treat it otherwise is to deny scripture. I agree that “It’s going to take more from the Church than just saying, “that’s wrong, quit doing it.”
It always takes more than “the Church just saying “that’s wrong, quit doing it” for the believer to turn from ANY sin. As with turning from any sin, it takes the power of the Holy Spirit, prayer, feasting on the word of God, abiding in Him. Christ not only saves people, He gives them the power to say no, indeed to not even desire, that which is evil.

As far as a person’s whole identity being wrapped up with homosexuality, I would say a person’s whole identity is wrapped up in any sinful behavior that is a huge, controlling aspect of their life. Greed, hate, lust . . . a person can be delivered from any of these through the power of God. Delivered, but yet not with the guarantee that there won’t still be a fight; but with the promise that God is ALWAYS there able to provide a way of escape.

Amy,

You’ve just done it again (and in doing so, missed Phil’s point). Homosexuality (the temptation related to the attraction toward the same sex) is NOT a sin – practicing homosexual acts IS. Please re-read my comment from July 25, 2007, 3:45 pm

We don’t call someone who is tempted to steal a thief. We don’t call a man who is tempted to have oral sex with a woman, but does not, a fornicator or an adulterer. However, we do call someone who is tempted with an attraction to the same sex a homosexual. So, when we call ‘homosexuality’ (the temptation) a sin, we are already treating it differently.

If Bell said “Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality”, he was actually being very correct to this point – there is no singling out of one type of temptation over any other. Because we continue to label people with this temptation by their sin, and we – in our very language – confuse the temptation from the sin, it is important that we are more careful in the way we handle this topic.

People I know who struggle (or have struggled) with this temptation already feel somewhat rejected by God because of their temptation, even if they have never acted upon it. Our sexuality, more than most anything else, tends to define how we see ourselves. So, when we say “homosexuality is a sin”, we are telling that person – who needs God as much as we do – whether you act on your temptation or not, you are sinning in that attraction. This is why a number of churches, including Bell’s, handle homosexuality as a one-to-one or small group issue rather than as a dogmatic issue to give red meat to those who already know what the Bible says (and should know, but often don’t, what it doesn’t say).

Your example of oral sex is completely off for all of these reasons, and more. Might I make a friendly suggestion that in future conversations you avoid your “hypotheticals”, as they tend to distort the actual issues by creating straw men that consistently have to be dealt with before we can ever get to the topic at hand?

Chris,
No, I did not “just do it again.”

And I did not miss Phil’s point: He said,
“I said the oral sex argument was a straw man because it is about someone commiting a sinful act that is clearly wrong. Homosexuality seems to be much more complicated because are not talking about just a sinful act, we are talking about something that a person’s whole identity is wrapped up in.”

Key phrases: oral sex…SINFUL ACT; homosexuality . . . not talking about just a SINFUL ACT

Phil and I were talking about sinful acts.

You said, “Having re-read Witherington’s article, Bell was talking specifically about “homosexuality” – which is the temptation (and the tendencies) – and not homosexual practice. ”

Prove it. Prove how Witherington’s article clearly demonstrates this. And prove to me how Bell made it extremely clear to his audience that he was talking about homosexual tendencies.

Look at how Witherington uses the phrase “sexual sin” over and over. Whatever he thought Bell was talking about, it is “sexual sin.” Here’s an example from Witherington: “The argument is this— “Jesus never said anything about homosexuality”. This is not quite true. Jesus took all sorts of sexual sin very seriously.”

And notice, that towards the END of the article Witherington says, “Rob then raises the point that the Bible says nothing about sexual orientation.” At the END of the article, after his other points have been made.

I am not perfect, my brain is not perfect, my logic is not perfect, but you are using your sense that your logic is superior to mine to ignore FACTS.

Rob Bell has spoken out against abortion. I heard that in a recent sermon.

Not that this has anything to do with this original topic. But it’s been hijacked.

And since we are doing litmus tests on whether someone is a Christian or not…

Not to be a pest, but could we take this Bell/Witherington/Homosexuality topic into a new post or something? This one was a McManus thing for a while, and I feel like the topic and the points being raised are extremely important and deserve their own, fresh post. Or something.

Too bad there wasn’t a forum with standard topics where all the conversation could be directed once the comments had run their course and were diverging from the original post. That would be helpful.

matt,

You are cracking me up!

So you think Amy should “out” Ken for his “man-love” obssesion?

ROTFLOL….

Blessings,
iggy