c’mon guys… it’s simple reading comprehension
Yes, we have another communication problem. C?N recently published a book review of Dan Kimball’s work They like Jesus – But Not the Church. The whole premise of this book critique was the following
Kimball states in his book that these are “exciting times†that we live in when Jesus is becoming more and more respected in our culture by non-churchgoing people (p. 12). He also states that we should be: “be out listening to what non-Christians, especially those in their late teens to thirties, are saying and thinking about the church and Christianity” (p. 12).
I’m at a loss finding chapter and verse for where I should be taking the temperature of the culture and adjusting the message of the gospel accordingly. (emphasis mine)
Did anyone read in the paraphrase provided that we are supposed to be “adjusting the message of the gospel accordingly†as we read the culture? I can’t even find a hint of that statement within the content provided. He simply said that we need to be listening to what non-believers are saying about the church. Sometimes I think that many watch doggies just like to hear themselves type the same old nonsense… semi-pelagianism…emergent… true biblical doctrine… Dan Kimball, Erwin McManus, Rob Bell… You know, it would do them a lot of good to actually do what Kimball suggests and just listen for a while. It would be a healthy practice for them to go into the gay districts of their communities and ask people what they think about the church and Christianity. They would probably get an earful. Of course, it would probably all be dismissed as the total depravity of their non-elect hearts.
Kimball’s message is that we need to be out listening to what non-Christians are saying and thinking about the church and Christianity so we know how to present the message accordingly, not change it. It has nothing to do with altering the message to simply please a culture. You see, WE have hurt a lot of people with ridiculous religion. WE have created communities of hate and prejudice. WE have promoted homophobia and at times deepened racial and economic lines. So, WE need to be the healing agents that mend the wounds that WE have created. And that will affect how we minister to people, not the message we minister with.
August 7th, 2007 at 10:26 am
It’s not correct to even imply that’s a book review. If you look at the comments, the writer admits that he hasn’t even read the book. It’s more like a “book title” review.
August 7th, 2007 at 10:29 am
despite what the author said, it is basically a book critique, addressing the content in the book. A bad review, yes.
August 7th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Don’t forget about Ken Silva’s “man-loving” obsession.
LOL!
It’s true they can’t read and comprehend much of the things they write about…
Also, these are the “religious” that think “hurting others” is their “religious duty” for it is better to slam someone with the truth and keep them out of heaven and away from the kindness of God which leads them to repentance than to do as the Bible calls us to be, ministers of reconciliation.
Blessings,
iggy
August 7th, 2007 at 10:31 am
More like a judge Dan Kimball review!
iggy
August 7th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Nathan,
But my point was, if you look in the comments section of that blog post that is linked on CRN (here), the author of the posts says he only read parts of the book - not the whole book. It’s rather disingenuous, if you ask me.
August 7th, 2007 at 10:44 am
OK here is the latest and newest translation according to C?N
Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Go south to the road–the desert road–that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.”
So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the book of Isaiah the prophet.
The Spirit told Philip, “Go to that chariot and stay near it.”
Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
“How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture: “He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is silent, so he did not open his mouth.
In his humiliation he was deprived of justice. Who can speak of his descendants? For his life was taken from the earth.”
The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?”
Then Philip stated, “You are such an idiot, you mean you can’t figure that out?†and whipping out a motivational poster against “emergents†began mocking him until the eunuch began to cry. Then Phillip told him the good news about Jesus and how the eunuch most likely was gay and would go to hell. As they traveled along the road, Phillip quoted Spurgeon until the eunuch puked his guts out!
And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then Philip told the eunuch to go down into the water and wash himself. When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing.
be blessed,
iggy
August 7th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
greetings!
Phil - you are quite correct in saying that this is NOT a book review, I never claim that anywhere - I have read parts of the book - I’ve read other books by Kimball, and am familiar with him as an author. My question is how many more quotes do I need to read before I’m allowed to form an OPINION? Not sure why my opinion is “disingenuous”? Feel free to disagree - but to say it’s disingenuous is sort of funny use of the word in this case. My opinion may be a lot things, but it is truly sincere.
Secondly, I’ve asked Dan to clear up the confusion for me and state where he stands on some key issues - I’m still waiting for a response - and perhaps one is on the way - I hope it is.
Nathan - again, not a book review at all. Just a pondering of how Biblical the Jesus is that our unchurched culture supposedly loves.
August 7th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Eric,
I posted again on your blog, but I do think when you say you are giving an opinion of a book, it has some implication that you have read the whole book. It would be equivalent of me giving an opinion of a movie for which I had only seen a trailer. Now, I might get the idea that it’s dumb movie from a trailer, and say it looks like a dumb movie, but I wouldn’t post an article about the supposed substance of the movie based on a trailer.
August 7th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Quick, someone tell Ken Silva that Pastor Eric lists “Wild At Heart” as one of his favorite books.
Apostasy!
August 7th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
***Secondly, I’ve asked Dan to clear up the confusion for me and state where he stands on some key issues - I’m still waiting for a response - and perhaps one is on the way - I hope it is.***
Then maybe you should have waited for Dan to respond before bashing him?
August 7th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
If every pastor stopped whatever they were doing to answer every critic, they’d never get anything done. Why does Dan have to respond to Eric?
August 7th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Matt,
Dan actually did take time to comment on his blog a few times, and he was actually very gracious.
August 7th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
I know. He even called up one of the Pyromaniac guys and spoke at length.
August 7th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Matt,
It reminds me of a quote I actually read somewhere about someone talking about Brian McClaren. The person said (I’m quoting from memory), “I might not agree with all of McClaren’s theology, but I agree with his theology does to him.”
It saddens me to see such infighting between Christians, honestly. I am grateful for the internet, but in some ways it has allowed some of the venom that has been hidden for years in the Church to come to the surface. The saddest thing is perhaps how much these people seem to be blinded by their desire to be 100% correct.
August 7th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
I agree that the tone of many is fleshly and self-righteous. But to say that MacLaren never tampers with some core truths is not being impartial. Even he admits that he no longer believes some things he once did.
August 7th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Rick,
Well, I would say that about myself, too. What core truths are you referring too, out of curiosity?
August 7th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
In his generous orthodoxy he pulls up stakes on the scope of salvation, the nature of Scripture, and the existance of hell. It is true that it is sometimes difficult to read between the lines, but MacLaren has never refuted some of his critics clearly.
If the essence of MacLaren’s ministry is to bring the church to a more effective communication without abandoning orthodox truth, why will he not make that clear? I must assume he has changed some of his beliefs. Amid all the vitriol of Ken’s posts there are some very disturbing quotes from him and others.
August 7th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
But Phil, let me again emphasize that caustic rhetoric and name calling accomplishes nothing and certainly doesn’t reflect Christ. I reject most of the watchman blogs and there prideful verbal assaults.
While I may admit MacLaren makes some interesting observations, you also must admit that at times he goes too far.
No?
August 7th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Rick,
He definitely pushes boundaries, but I guess I haven’t read anything where he’s actually denied that salvation comes through Christ alone, or the Trinity, etc.
I have tried to be fair, and perhaps I am too gracious with him. He is not a full time pastor anymore, just pretty much a writer and speaker. I guess I am willing to give someone like that a little more wiggle room. I am personally grateful for his writing because of the journey it started me on.
I could relate to a lot of what he wrote in A Generous Orthodoxy because I grew up in a church that pretty much believed most people who said they were Christians weren’t. That may or may not be true, but I was around a lot of judgmental people.
I thank God for where I am now, and I actually do understand quite well where more conservative folks are coming from. Please understand, I’m not saying this out of arrogance. I just feel like there was a lot of toxic stuff I came out of, and I’m almost starting over in a way.
August 7th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Rick,
Brian has refuted much, but no one listens… they just roar louder.
In a talk I heard that he gave he was talking about how there are all these things said about him and he (half) jokingly states that he asks his wife and friends if he is that same person these guys are talking about…
If you need to know what his views are, read N.T Wright, he practically plagiarizes him… I have been reading both of them together and they fit well as well as Brian quotes him, they speak at many of the same conferences.
If one need to fault someone then go after N.T. Wright for his views (which they do but then cast him in the same camp with Borge and such who he has nothing in common other than they take a differing view on Paul than the traditionalist view).
Be Blessed,
iggy
August 7th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Iggy,
I was going to say either N.T. Wright or Dallas Willard. The funny thing to me is that one of the things that got him in hot water was using Willard’s term of “Vampire Christians”. I guess people missed when DW wrote it.
August 7th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Iggy - I don’t mind a deepening and expansion of the core truths of God’s written revelation. I am part mystic myself, so I love to meditate and unravel the deep mysteries of the glory of God. I aslo reject the stagnant and ungracious way in which some of the orthodox world approaches others, and I reject the watering down of some of the seeker/purpose methodologies.
I do not question MacLaren’s salvation, but I do think his view of Scripture has already lent itself to doctrinal dilution (i.e. Burke). But we can discuss it even when you view MacLaren in a more positive light and I might be much more skeptical.
August 7th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
I will say that Brian is one who in his “Pastoral” manner is extremely sympathetic to others. He will affirm the person greatly and yet not state he agrees with them.
I noted this in his interview http://bleedingpurplepodcast.blogspot.com/2006/01/interview-with-brian-mclaren-part-ii.html
There he never states he agrees with or is a universalist but comes as close as I can find… yet in this if one really listens he is saying he really “hurts” and “understands” and “feels” for the guy who IS a universalist.
Again, I have listened to hours and hours… probably more hours than Ken has of Walter Martin of Brian, and it is a bit of a trick to “get” him in what he is often really doing. His answers are “beyond” the black and white that fundies want… they are beyond the scope of a “system” as they are in the arena of truly loving one’s enemy… and serving those who hate you… as in his answer here. http://planetpreterist.com/news-2774.html
Again, if I had a great amount of money that there was a statement that clearly states “I Brian McLaren do not believe in hell, the atonement, or do believe in universalism and etc” I would lay it out there… but I bet the only person that would claim it is Brian if he jokingly stated to me.
Be Blessed,
iggy
August 7th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Rick,
Spenser Burke is a bit trickier as he may be a universal atonement where he takes the atonement to it “logical” end… (which Calvin dealt with by limited atonement).
The thing is that Spense DOES believe in hell… but he states that a person must choose to not be “saved”.
I differ in that there is a misuse of C.S. Lewis, in that Lewis is thought to believe that one can be saved without knowing Jesus Name… (though I think Jesus is the “Unknown God” and those who trust in Him will be saved, I see that God will send someone to reveal Jesus to that person.) I see that people take the Narnia Chronicles as theology instead of its original intent as a children’s story with theology in it and mistakenly state Lewis thought one could serve Jesus without knowing it and in that be saved.
Burke in my view does cross the line then comes back then crosses it and then comes back… but interestingly still affirms the core beliefs of Christianity.
Blessings,
iggy
August 7th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Burke is…uh…goofy. If he believes what he says he is a heretic. Sorry.
August 7th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
By the way, I was conversing a little on Eric’s blog (who actually has been polite for the most part), and I (along with Dan Kimball) was eventually called a “mouthpiece of Satan” by one of the commenters. It is really hard to find common ground with people who think like that.
August 7th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Phil, I would disagree with you being a mouthpiece of Satan. You’re only a water boy attempting to work your way up!
August 7th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Rick,
Or is it down? Hmmm…
August 7th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Rick,
Burke believes that God’s grace is so incredibly awesome that it can save all mankind and reconcile all creation back to God.
In that it is so incredibly awesome the only way to not be saved, is to deny one’s own salvation. To “opt out”.
In that the only “sin” that keeps us out of heaven is that we deny Jesus as saviour, to not accept Jesus is “opting out”.
In my dialog with Spenser, that is what I got and what he (rather clumsily) is attempting to state… grant it using some very interesting words.
Do you realize though that the Unitarian Universalist Church is reconsidering some of the things they beleive becasue of Brian McLaren? I thought that was myself.
Again, unless you sort of interact with these guys on some level you might miss the subtle nuances in their views.
I do hold to universal atonement… I think that if the Calvinist is honest that is the conclusion of Calvin, his problem then was this lead to Universal salvation which he solved with “Limited atonement”.
The issues is that the Cross all are forgiven, but at the resurrection all are saved…. but we must accept Jesus at His death and acknowledge our own death… (dead in our sins) His burial, (being placed into “in Christ”, and resurrection… which is when we receive His Eternal Live by the Holy Spirit that then indwells us and seals us.
If we take the atonement of the Cross as equal to salvation, then we have the issue that Calvin faced… Universal atonement which leads to Universalism (that all are saved in the end) which is not taught in scirpture.
So, I differ with Burke but see where he takes his turn and understand his trouble in expressing what he means…
Be Blessed,
iggy
August 7th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Do you CRN.(Mis)Info? guys even read? Again you are shown from Burke’s own mouth he IS a “Christian Universalist.”
From a comment at Jesus Creed: “technically ‘I am a Universalist who believes in Hell’, (one of our subtitles in chapter 9)” http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=1302#comment-39622
It’s no mystery boys…
Comment by spencer burke — July 29, 2006 @
August 7th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Iggy,
By saying “universal atonement” are you meaning the same thing as “unlimited atonement”?
August 7th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Good point. My directional observation was emergent.
Seriously though, those type of creative hyperbole feed the flesh but grieve the Spirit. Instead of saying “I believe your theology is being influenced by the evil One” they attack you personally even sometimes hinting at that someone like you is departing on purpose.
I want to praise the Lord that He has scolded me in this area while still leading me to honestly confront some teachings. I could even sit down for lunch with Burke and speak with him. (Of course I would insist on me blessing the food!) ha!
August 7th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Hey Iggy, let me ask you this question about your last comment.
Huh!!??!!
August 7th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Rick,
I feel your pain. It’s at this point that I am thinking “there is no spoon” and imagine Keanu Reeves with a blank look on his face (is there any other look?).
August 7th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Huh, yeah, ahhh duh… but you missed the point altogether….
(oops broke the not talk rule…)
But how far off can you miss the point! LOL!
Think Ken… a “Universalist that believes in Hell” hmmm most Universalists as you are stating do not beleive in Hell and are saying all are getting saved… but Burke is stating that not all are getting saved… so there is a higher level of “universalist” that you are not even comprehending…. LOL!
Again, I give it to you to make our point better than we can ourselves! Go check your facts and actually research stuff enough to understand it will ya! LOL!
(Knowing that this just totally went over Ken’s head, I will resume my “no interaction rule” with Ken.)
Blessings to all,
iggy
August 7th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
“By saying “universal atonement†are you meaning the same thing as “unlimited atonementâ€? ”
The difference is that most “universal atonement†people will state that “all get saved in the end. I do not see that as i see that as the logical flaw in the view. I do see that there is an unlimited atonement but see that as not quite expressing the Atonement in all of its workings… (how was that for being a Brian McLarenish answer?)
Unlimited atonement states that all have the potential at being saved and that I fully agree, yet carries the baggage that we are part of the process, which I see that we are not say only that we recognize we are “dead in our sins” and turn to God for mercy and receive Faith by Grace and are saved. The focus is mostly on “me getting to heaven”.
I see the Universal Atonement… (now this will stretch some) as being Universal in that it saves the whole cosmos… and in that we are partakers of this divine salvation as we do as stated in the unlimited atonement view.
So I affirm unlimited atonement but see it still…. limited…. LOL!
This is a bit of a different understanding in the word “universal” than the unitarian view, which is why I stated that the Unitarians are taking a another look at their view because of Brian Mclaren… they can see this difference though Ken Silva clearly cannot! LOL!
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:-S3bSrIdhawJ:www.pswduuma.org/documents/emergent_culture.pdf+brian+mclaren+universalism&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=29&gl=us
Be Blessed,
iggy
August 7th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
I guess what I am saying is that an attempt to unravel Burke’s theology sometimes creates more smoke. And when you also try and soften his words it becomes very convoluted.
August 7th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Rick,
I think the thing to realize about Burke is he is “in process” and has not actually come to a conclusion… but he is writing about some thoughts he has been think along the line of so it is only what he thinks he thinks as of now….
It is a bit “English theologian” who is stating some processed thoughts but has not fully come to any conclusion whether those thoughts are what they truly believe…
N.T.Wright likes to use that “line” in many of his lectures which I have listened to.
Now, how was that for confusing! LOL!
Remember the bottom line in a “postmodern” mindset is that we can change our minds as we hold loosely to things like this and tightly to Jesus.
(not all of postmodern thought is Christian so the context is that of “in house” discussion amongst friends discussing abstract ideas without committing fully to them. Though Burke may be more committed to the abstract without fully developing the idea in all its realization.)
Be Blessed,
iggy
August 7th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Phil,.
I missed the Dallas Willard comment above… sorry.
I think that DW is more orthodox in most peoples view so is a harder target, Brian seems to be more widely read and hated… so is the bigger target.
Blessings,
iggy
August 7th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
I can’t resist jumping in here. I’ve never read anything by Dan Kimball; the only thing I know about him is his unique hairdo. But sorta on topic here:
Dave said: Then maybe you should have waited for Dan to respond before bashing him?
Matt said: If every pastor stopped whatever they were doing to answer every critic, they’d never get anything done. Why does Dan have to respond to Eric?
Scenario One:
“Did you contact [the guy] personally?”
“No.”
“Then you’ve got no right to talk about [insert topic here]!”
Scenario Two:
“Did you contact [the guy] personally?”
“Yes.”
“Why should he answer you!”
You’re d***ed if you do, d***ed if you don’t around here!
August 7th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Come on, Iggy, you know that Burke is way out there. This process stuff is a smoke screen. We can pray he comes back but I’ve read A Heretics Guide book which even some solid emergents criticized.
Let’s call a spade a spade.
August 7th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Rick,
I think though I would rather give the benefit of the doubt as I have conversed with Spense to clarify some things…
The book is poorly written and is not a clear representation of the view he is processing…. In a way (giving possible motive so could be wrong but willing to speculate) he may have been overly zealous to be “controversial” for book sales… In that I agree in the “reading” of the book itself I would conclude as you have…. and I do… but as i have conversed with him, he stated that my view is just another way of saying his view… that we are expressing the same idea but differently.
In that I give Spenser the benefit of the doubt that he is not a “true” heretic… but a believer in process trying to put the pieces together as I have been doing for about 18 years. I would rather error on the side of charity in all things with Spenser than write him off as the “heretic” he claims to be… there is still too much traditional view in there that I see “Grace” will cover.
Blessings,
iggy
August 7th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Keith,
I commented on your post… and it was very witty and sparkled with my usual charm… but it was sucked into the vortex to the “damned” comments and not posted…
I think the spam filter got me…
Blessings,
iggy
August 7th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Before you go pouting off at the mouth, do your homework.
“Christian Universalists” believe in a hell, they are NOT the Unitarian/Universalists:
http://www.christian-universalism.com/
August 7th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
I wanted to clarify a point…
In the article on the Unitarian article it is that they can see some commonalities in some of those in emerging… and are hoping to persuade them to come to them… this is though rather interesting that they still note a “difference” people like Ken Silva cannot see.
Be Blessed,
iggy
August 7th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Ken,
Like I stated,
DUH!
LOL!
Yet, you still miss the nuances of the discussion. You still have a very limited view of what you think you understand.
You need to go study more. Because there are more branches than the website you gave which is one view… but that is not the “same” as what Spenser, Brian or others are discussing… you are jumping to a conclusion based on your Internet knowledge.
I think if you read Origen and some other of the early Church fathers… you might see a difference…
Here is an “ok” article… though I think it is a bit skewed against amillinialism. But it see it a fair assessment of the topic.
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=402
iggy
August 7th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
I am not too sure what Christian Univeralists and Brian McClaren have to do with all of this. Let me make a few comments to Eric.
1. You can say it is not a book review, sure. But if the whole article is a critique of the content in the book, you use the book name as the title and you use quotes from the book, you are reviewing the book.
2. If you are going to make statements about what someone believes, you cannot go off of excerpts. How do you know that the next chapter will not clarify all your concerns or questions.
3. Are you going to address how you read into Kimball’s quote and basically wrote an article on you assumptions that he believes we need to change the message of the gospel?
To Keith,
unfortunately your assessment does not hold up. It would have if the watch doggies actually contacted Kimball before writing an article about him. Kimball has no responsibility to address attacks based on (as proven here) false assumptions about him.
August 7th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Hello,* I posted this on eric’s site, and since the discussion is based from there and here - wanted to include it here also.
hope this helps in the discussion.
——
I have been traveling and in church meetings today. But so fascinating that it seems the most vocal critics here haven’t even read the book!
Hi Ken Silva, I would encourage you to please tell the truth that I am not being vague about doctrine, as I even took the time and called you up on the phone a few weeks ago and I specifically walked you through the doctrines I believe and followed that up with an email list to you of the doctrines we teach and hold to - so that you wouldn’t be saying I am vague.
You are indicating I have been vague, and I am not sure what else I can do to not be vague besides walking with you the key doctrines we teach, and following that up with an email listing them as well. For those that are interested, the list of doctrines we teach and believe were posted on a blog entry:
http://www.dankimball.com/vintage_faith/2007/04/more_ephesians_.html
I don’t see how that is vague. It doesn’t have the Scriptural references on the list I put in te blog entry, but we do as we teach them.
Also, the original meaning of “fundamentalist” was the one from 1920, not from Torrey. So I am not redefining the term “fundamentalist” as it was originally used - I am sticking with the original meaning of the word.
Eric, yes I hold to the original 5 fundamentals and teach those - but I don’t use the term “inerrency” because like the term “fundamentals” it now means different things to different people and it is a term not used in the Scriptures, so I have no problem not using the term. What I say is that we believe that 100% of the Scriptures are inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16) and that exactly what God wanted in the originals is what was written.
As for the homosexual issue you raised, I state my position in the book andwhat we teach.
I disagree that listening to people in our culture to know how best to communicate to them is wrong. People in different cultures have different values and ways of thinking. To be a missionary, we must understand the ways different cultures think as to what way to present the gospel. The classic example is Paul who when in the synagogue started with the Scriptures, and reasoned with them to prove that Jesus was the Christ. In the synagogue they already trusted and believed the Scriptures were from God, they were already looking for the Messiah - so his approach in the synagogue reflected a specific culture and people. When Paul taught the gospel on Mars Hill, he didn’t start with reasoning from Scripture but instead aknowledged they worship “gods”, quoted a pagan poet they were familiar with, walked back to the creation story and then onward to eventually speak of Jesus and judgment.
So there definetly is reasons for understanding a mindset as to best communicate. The four gospels show that in that Matthew’s gospel specifically is catered to a Jewish audience and included things that would be more of interest to them etc.
Also, in my opinion, if anyone is truly engaged in the lives of those outside the church, you would more naturally understand the need for this as it shows care and respect to take the time to understand their worldview. What I have interestingly been discovering as I start asking them, is that the same slice of Christians who are the types who raise these criticisms, don’t criticize missionaries when they study Buddhism when going to China, or whatever culture they are going into - so that they can be effective missionaries in a different culture and understand their beliefs. But to do the same thing in our American culture, it gets criticized.
All I know is that we had better take serioulsy the fact that the church is losing ground in our culture - an interesting article in USA Today from last week:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-08-06-church-dropouts_N.htm
This is why I know I am in this as a missionary in our community as we are passionate about seeing this change (by God’s Spirit).
I am honored that on this blog there is such interest in the topic and what I wrote. I would encourage those who do raise criticisms to please read the book and not just the title.
Peace in Jesus,
Dan
August 7th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
nathan,
I guess it would be the broader point of “another communication problem” and I have pushed it as Phil brought up Brian Mclaren, Rich built on that and I pretty much hijacked this thread… (yes I am the other “Amy” here! LOL!)
But, in a very loose way I did stay on the “point” that there is a communication problem. LOL!
Blessings,
iggy
August 7th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Dan,
You have a new book out?
LOL!
Just kidding!
blessings,
iggy
August 7th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
I’ve had some good interactions with Spencer, including
1. Raking his book over the coals on my blog/Next Wave
2. sitting across the table enjoying a beer.
Spencer is a good guy who’s gone off the rez a bit when it comes to the nature of salvation/justification/grace. The hard part in dealing with the book (Heretic’s Guide) is that he wrote it rather experimentally- that is, in a verbally processing way where he put down some thoughts that may or may not have been fully cooked in his brain. He’s admitted he’s even changed his mind about a few things since he wrote it.
Ultimately though, I think Spencer is wrong when he posits (from Rom 5) that all are saved unless they explicitly reject the grace of God.
However, he does believe that salvation comes (whether it comes to many or few) only through the work of Jesus Christ on our behalf and completely by the grace of God.
A question I struggle with in all this is: Does one have to believe in hell to go to heaven? In other words, could I be, say, an annihilationist and still be saved?
August 7th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
“Hi Ken Silva, I would encourage you to please tell the truth that I am not being vague about doctrine, as I even took the time and called you up on the phone a few weeks ago and I specifically walked you through the doctrines I believe and followed that up with an email list to you of the doctrines we teach and hold to - so that you wouldn’t be saying I am vague.”
Beauty… to quote Frank Turk: “Ouch. That’s gotta sting.”
August 7th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
I will agree with Ken on this one. The gospel is very limited and eternally exclusive. Few there be that find it is still true today.
August 7th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Oh Bob, you’re so cute. Doesn’t hurt at all because Dan specifically asked me NOT to discuss that he’d called me. But now since he has mentioned it, fair game.
What I say stands.
August 7th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
“What I say stands.”
Exactly. That’s the problem.
August 7th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
The fact the Spencer is a nice guy is irrelevant. And it just adds to my concern when so many not only rush to acclaim his friendship and goodness, but some soften his beliefs by saying he is in process or he wrote experimentally or no matter how heretically his writings he may change his mind so it doesn’t matter.
There is little if any accountability within the emerging/emergent movement. And hidng behind the observation that people like Ken and Ingrid are so self righteous and caustic still cannot give license to a doctrinal melee without some unloosed moorings. If Burke’s views are within emergent parameters wait till you see what his pupils teach.
There are so many “I never knew you” warnings in the New Testament but so many want to expand the gospel’s parameters to include almost everyone. Humanitarian efforts in Jesus’ name are commendable and commandable, but they can never save. The gospel must be communicated and must be received. That truth must be guarded with our lives. (see the Moravians)
August 7th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
henry, when I write those things I’m showing you that I’m dealing with a real flesh and blood person. It’s true. He’s really nice. It’s also true- he’s dead wrong on a number of issues.
I critiqued his book and ideas harshly in a public way- I and others including scot mcknight took him to task and publicly called him back to a more biblicly sound position… What more were you looking for in terms of “accountability”???
August 7th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
I recall some of the things you said, and you are correct. Some of you do take people to task. Keep it up, it will get worse.
August 7th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
What more were you looking for in terms of “accountability�??
Leaving any movement which embraces literal heretics like Spencer Burke who refuses to repent. Pretty simple Bob.
August 7th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Ken,
Spense took quite a beating… and as I stated if understood in the broader context… is “in process” in his theology.
But, then grace to you is a alien concept…
iggy
August 7th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
oh, I see… Kind of like how you surrendered your Ordination in the SBC and disavowed any connection with them over heir continued affiliation with heretics/apostates Rick Warren and Erwin McManus?
Oh, wait…
August 7th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
OK Bob, you’ve played the game correctly and stuck Ken with the Old Maid. Game over.
August 7th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Wow, I feel like I missed a lot in the three or so hours I was gone.
I will ask this - how is the “Doctrines of Grace” that Ken keeps on talking about not Calvinism.
I know Ken denies being a Calvinist, but he sure seems like one to me. Basically the point that Ken and other seem to be saying is that you can’t be a Christian and deny T.U.L.I.P. If that’s what they’re going to turn everything into, it’s not even worth trying to talk to them, honestly.