Comments on: Introducing the ECM (Part 6) http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/05/introducing-the-ecm-part-6/ A Ministry of Shepherds' Fellowship Tue, 06 Jan 2009 08:09:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: MacArthur on the Emerging Church at PastorResources Blog http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/05/introducing-the-ecm-part-6/#comment-14509 Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:59:53 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/05/introducing-the-ecm-part-6/#comment-14509 [...] Introducing the ECM (Part 6) [...] […] Introducing the ECM (Part 6) […]

]]> by: Pastor Astor http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/05/introducing-the-ecm-part-6/#comment-4699 Sat, 23 Dec 2006 15:06:57 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/05/introducing-the-ecm-part-6/#comment-4699 "He even has the audacity to ask for a universal moratorium on preaching about the sin of sodomy. Apparently, he thinks the rest of us should be silent about the matter until he makes up his own mind about it." The authors view: Sodomy is a sin. End of discussion. EC further questions that need to be considered: - Have we let homosexuality become a "worse sin" because it is such an infected issue, thereby loosing the aspect of Gods grace for sinners? - Are we treating homosexuals differently than other sinners? Are we ready to let homosexuals live, thrive and garher strength in the body of christ in order to be able to conquer their sin? - Is it homosexual orientation or behavoiur that is sinful? Can we ever judge anyone for a potential for sinning? Then how come I can be in the church? As long as there is a trace of a possibilty that homosexuality is genetical/socially formed early in childhood rather than a chosen behaviour - shouldn´t the christian approach be to give them the benefit of doubt? - Can christian homosexuals who have decided to live in sexual abstinence be members in the church? Leaders? - How do we form a fellowship that is more family and less theatre, in order for abstaining homosexuals (and for that part, heterosexual singles) to have real, intimate relationships? - How come the burgois family (mum, daddy, children) has become the norm? When our founder (Jesus) and foremost teacher (Paul) both where singles and asked us to consider celibacy for the sake of the kingdom? -What if homosexual people could live together in pairs, abstaining from sex, but still being each others partners - maybe making vows, in what way would that be sinful? Honestly, do you think that the proposition "Sodomy is sin" is enough of an answer? Propositions are dangerous in that they are highly addictive and having reached truth, we believe that all has been said on the subject that can be said. "Sodomy is sin" is a faithful reading of the Bible and the right answer (and enough of an answer) in a christendom context where christian ethics have been reduced to personal morality - the modern america up to about 1970. But it is not enough at this time in history! AND IT ISN´T THE WHOLE TRUTH AND THE ONLY THING THE BIBLE SAYS ON THE SUBJECT! In a postchristendom reality, personal morality is not enough. Richard Hayes (in "The moral vision of the new testament") postulates that Pauls ethics are based on four focal points; community, cross and new creation - it is informed by the community, and is collective in nature, not individualistic. It is based on the cross, containing both grace and a recognition of the hardships we can expect to encounter as disciples, and it is eschatological in that it is often informed by and motiveted with the future glory. In the same way we need at this time in history to rethink the church as a missional community in a pagan world. This does not mean accomodation, but it means we need to be brave enough to question our propositions. This specific question, then, changes from "Is homosexuality wrong?" to "How can we be church in a way, faithful to scripture, aware of our own shortcomings and need of salvation, that paints Jesus in such a vivid way that we are approachable for homosexuals? And then, how can we be a fellowship that not only demands celibacy, but also offers enough imtimacy to make it a possibilty worth considering? In my opinion, the "truth" that the author desperately wants McLaren to confess to is seriously flawed in its over simplific treatment of a complex matter. In the choice of having dinner with the author or McLaren, I would choose McLaren. I´d rather by the authors book dinner than the author, neither are probably going to change in any respect, but the book I can hide in my pocket. “He even has the audacity to ask for a universal moratorium on preaching about the sin of sodomy. Apparently, he thinks the rest of us should be silent about the matter until he makes up his own mind about it.”
The authors view: Sodomy is a sin. End of discussion.
EC further questions that need to be considered:
- Have we let homosexuality become a “worse sin” because it is such an infected issue, thereby loosing the aspect of Gods grace for sinners?
- Are we treating homosexuals differently than other sinners? Are we ready to let homosexuals live, thrive and garher strength in the body of christ in order to be able to conquer their sin?
- Is it homosexual orientation or behavoiur that is sinful? Can we ever judge anyone for a potential for sinning? Then how come I can be in the church? As long as there is a trace of a possibilty that homosexuality is genetical/socially formed early in childhood rather than a chosen behaviour - shouldn´t the christian approach be to give them the benefit of doubt?
- Can christian homosexuals who have decided to live in sexual abstinence be members in the church? Leaders?
- How do we form a fellowship that is more family and less theatre, in order for abstaining homosexuals (and for that part, heterosexual singles) to have real, intimate relationships?
- How come the burgois family (mum, daddy, children) has become the norm? When our founder (Jesus) and foremost teacher (Paul) both where singles and asked us to consider celibacy for the sake of the kingdom?
-What if homosexual people could live together in pairs, abstaining from sex, but still being each others partners - maybe making vows, in what way would that be sinful?

Honestly, do you think that the proposition “Sodomy is sin” is enough of an answer?
Propositions are dangerous in that they are highly addictive and having reached truth, we believe that all has been said on the subject that can be said.
“Sodomy is sin” is a faithful reading of the Bible and the right answer (and enough of an answer) in a christendom context where christian ethics have been reduced to personal morality - the modern america up to about 1970. But it is not enough at this time in history! AND IT ISN´T THE WHOLE TRUTH AND THE ONLY THING THE BIBLE SAYS ON THE SUBJECT!

In a postchristendom reality, personal morality is not enough. Richard Hayes (in “The moral vision of the new testament”) postulates that Pauls ethics are based on four focal points; community, cross and new creation - it is informed by the community, and is collective in nature, not individualistic. It is based on the cross, containing both grace and a recognition of the hardships we can expect to encounter as disciples, and it is eschatological in that it is often informed by and motiveted with the future glory.

In the same way we need at this time in history to rethink the church as a missional community in a pagan world. This does not mean accomodation, but it means we need to be brave enough to question our propositions.

This specific question, then, changes from “Is homosexuality wrong?” to “How can we be church in a way, faithful to scripture, aware of our own shortcomings and need of salvation, that paints Jesus in such a vivid way that we are approachable for homosexuals? And then, how can we be a fellowship that not only demands celibacy, but also offers enough imtimacy to make it a possibilty worth considering?

In my opinion, the “truth” that the author desperately wants McLaren to confess to is seriously flawed in its over simplific treatment of a complex matter.

In the choice of having dinner with the author or McLaren, I would choose McLaren. I´d rather by the authors book dinner than the author, neither are probably going to change in any respect, but the book I can hide in my pocket.

]]> by: I’m Going to Pick a Fight » Strangers and Exiles http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/05/introducing-the-ecm-part-6/#comment-4581 Fri, 22 Dec 2006 01:41:21 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/05/introducing-the-ecm-part-6/#comment-4581 [...] Introducing the ECM (Part 6) [...] […] Introducing the ECM (Part 6) […]

]]> by: Becoming Intolerant of Tolerance » Strangers and Exiles http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/05/introducing-the-ecm-part-6/#comment-4005 Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:50:07 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/05/introducing-the-ecm-part-6/#comment-4005 [...] Phil Johnson at Puplit magazine describes the word games used in emergent church circles.   « Reading of Hebrews 9 and 10 |   [...] […] Phil Johnson at Puplit magazine describes the word games used in emergent church circles.   « Reading of Hebrews 9 and 10 |   […]

]]> by: donsands http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/05/introducing-the-ecm-part-6/#comment-3820 Wed, 06 Dec 2006 13:41:33 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/05/introducing-the-ecm-part-6/#comment-3820 Being a Christian, and following Christ, and loving Christ, means we love His Word. And His Word, the Bible, is the truth. From Genisis to Revelation, God wants us to live by every Word. This is our spiritual food. Brian has very little Scripture referrences in his book that I read, and in other things I have read. God didn't make it as complicated as Brian wants to make it. He is bringing confusion and division. God hates when brothers are divided. I pray Brian would come back from his knee-jerk reaction toward those who mishandle the Holy Scriptures with arrogance, and embrace the Word of God again with devotion and humility. I agree with Steven. "I will worship ... and praise Your name for Your lovingkindness and for Your Truth: for You have magnified Your Word above all Your name." Pslam 138:2 Also: John 17:17 Being a Christian, and following Christ, and loving Christ, means we love His Word. And His Word, the Bible, is the truth. From Genisis to Revelation, God wants us to live by every Word. This is our spiritual food.

Brian has very little Scripture referrences in his book that I read, and in other things I have read.

God didn’t make it as complicated as Brian wants to make it. He is bringing confusion and division.

God hates when brothers are divided.
I pray Brian would come back from his knee-jerk reaction toward those who mishandle the Holy Scriptures with arrogance, and embrace the Word of God again with devotion and humility.
I agree with Steven.

“I will worship … and praise Your name for Your lovingkindness and for Your Truth: for You have magnified Your Word above all Your name.” Pslam 138:2
Also: John 17:17

]]> by: John http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/05/introducing-the-ecm-part-6/#comment-3811 Wed, 06 Dec 2006 06:18:25 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/05/introducing-the-ecm-part-6/#comment-3811 Interesting how Touchstone says we have an "read with an eye toward supporting pre-conconceived conclusions." Now here's a thought experiment: 1) Based on everything Touchstone says guess his view on evolution. 2) Check the link and see if you're right 3) Isn't it sad how predictable it was? But its better to do the reverse. See what his views are on evolution and the guess what his view on certainty, orthodoxy, and EM are : bam you got it. @ Touchstone: Just wanting to point out that the cookie cutter mold you say we are just blindly fitting into you are too... The knife cuts both ways. If you want to refute Johnson's view you're going to have to show, esp. after his own words about certainty and his not so certain view about homosexuality, how he loves certainty in any fashion. Just b/c he wrote it somewhere else in his book or said in a sermon "I love certainty and the truth" DOES NOT MEAN HE DOES. Come out and show us how he can do that and make the comments he made. Interesting how Touchstone says we have an “read with an eye toward supporting pre-conconceived conclusions.”

Now here’s a thought experiment:

1) Based on everything Touchstone says guess his view on evolution.

2) Check the link and see if you’re right

3) Isn’t it sad how predictable it was?

But its better to do the reverse. See what his views are on evolution and the guess what his view on certainty, orthodoxy, and EM are : bam you got it.

@ Touchstone: Just wanting to point out that the cookie cutter mold you say we are just blindly fitting into you are too… The knife cuts both ways.

If you want to refute Johnson’s view you’re going to have to show, esp. after his own words about certainty and his not so certain view about homosexuality, how he loves certainty in any fashion. Just b/c he wrote it somewhere else in his book or said in a sermon “I love certainty and the truth” DOES NOT MEAN HE DOES. Come out and show us how he can do that and make the comments he made.

]]> by: albert http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/05/introducing-the-ecm-part-6/#comment-3805 Tue, 05 Dec 2006 23:03:06 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/05/introducing-the-ecm-part-6/#comment-3805 Good thoughts Touchstone. I'd have to ponder on whether or not Hegel's dialectic would necessarily be a good analogy/reference to describe the situation mainly because I don't think the paradigm would be accurate. I think borrowing strengths to fit a modular reconstruction would be better. What I mean is, not to create a entirely new synthesis, but rather borrowing from both the thesis and antithesis. The synthesis would therefore not be entirely new, but both Orthodox and Progressive paradoxically. Good thoughts Touchstone. I’d have to ponder on whether or not Hegel’s dialectic would necessarily be a good analogy/reference to describe the situation mainly because I don’t think the paradigm would be accurate. I think borrowing strengths to fit a modular reconstruction would be better. What I mean is, not to create a entirely new synthesis, but rather borrowing from both the thesis and antithesis. The synthesis would therefore not be entirely new, but both Orthodox and Progressive paradoxically.

]]> by: David Moore http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/05/introducing-the-ecm-part-6/#comment-3803 Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:38:39 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/05/introducing-the-ecm-part-6/#comment-3803 Has anyone here ever seen the website for The Center For Progressive Christianity? I think it's perfect for this guy McLaren. They find more comfort "in the search for truth" than in "answers". I'll take answers every time, thank you! Check it out, it's amazing. They are "repelled" by claims of Christianity to be the only way. Yet they use His name. Ah, we are in the end times. Has anyone here ever seen the website for The Center For Progressive Christianity? I think it’s perfect for this guy McLaren. They find more comfort “in the search for truth” than in “answers”. I’ll take answers every time, thank you! Check it out, it’s amazing. They are “repelled” by claims of Christianity to be the only way. Yet they use His name. Ah, we are in the end times.

]]> by: Touchstone http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/05/introducing-the-ecm-part-6/#comment-3802 Tue, 05 Dec 2006 20:35:36 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/05/introducing-the-ecm-part-6/#comment-3802 Phil, I see McLaren as more of a <i>doppelgänger</i> for priests in the Cult of Certainty than simply Fosdick-redux. From where I stand, were just in the middle of a long, drawn out Hegelian dialectic. You're the Thesis (Cult of Certainty), McLaren is the Antithesis(Cult of Uncertainty), and somewhere in between both of you extremes is a healthy Synthesis (Certainty where warranted, comfortable with doubt where it belongs). There's an irony in your post here that demonstrates McLaren's Antithesis for him; In assessing McLaren, you've demonstrated the "over-reach reflex" that is at the heart of McLaren's critique of modern evangelicalism. Having read a lot of McLaren myself, your analysis comes across like much of what I glean from your analysis of scripture -- read with an eye toward supporting pre-conconceived conclusions. I don't think an honest reviewer could say that McLaren "despises" certainty, for example; that's just your showing your propensity for being an oracle -- rather than gleaning full certainty from scriptural passages that have been subtle and conflicted debates across many time frames and schools of thought, you've got your Certainty Decoder Ring fixed on McLaren's heart. *You're* certain he despises certainty itself, even though that's manifestly not supported by McLaren's own words. If you ask the man, do you suppose he would affirm that he "despises" certainty? No, I don't suppose he would either. But you know what he *really* thinks, deep down. You're a priest of the Cult of Certainty, after all! Seriously, though, it's too bad that your audience doesn't get the benefit of more than self-congratulatory caricature of McLaren and his ideas. You're just empowering him as you do this, for eventually, *some* people take a look for themselves, and realize you've been indulging yourself in your teaching here. -Touchstone Phil,

I see McLaren as more of a doppelgänger for priests in the Cult of Certainty than simply Fosdick-redux. From where I stand, were just in the middle of a long, drawn out Hegelian dialectic. You’re the Thesis (Cult of Certainty), McLaren is the Antithesis(Cult of Uncertainty), and somewhere in between both of you extremes is a healthy Synthesis (Certainty where warranted, comfortable with doubt where it belongs).

There’s an irony in your post here that demonstrates McLaren’s Antithesis for him; In assessing McLaren, you’ve demonstrated the “over-reach reflex” that is at the heart of McLaren’s critique of modern evangelicalism. Having read a lot of McLaren myself, your analysis comes across like much of what I glean from your analysis of scripture — read with an eye toward supporting pre-conconceived conclusions. I don’t think an honest reviewer could say that McLaren “despises” certainty, for example; that’s just your showing your propensity for being an oracle — rather than gleaning full certainty from scriptural passages that have been subtle and conflicted debates across many time frames and schools of thought, you’ve got your Certainty Decoder Ring fixed on McLaren’s heart. *You’re* certain he despises certainty itself, even though that’s manifestly not supported by McLaren’s own words.

If you ask the man, do you suppose he would affirm that he “despises” certainty? No, I don’t suppose he would either. But you know what he *really* thinks, deep down. You’re a priest of the Cult of Certainty, after all!

Seriously, though, it’s too bad that your audience doesn’t get the benefit of more than self-congratulatory caricature of McLaren and his ideas. You’re just empowering him as you do this, for eventually, *some* people take a look for themselves, and realize you’ve been indulging yourself in your teaching here.

-Touchstone

]]> by: Josh http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/05/introducing-the-ecm-part-6/#comment-3800 Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:41:27 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/05/introducing-the-ecm-part-6/#comment-3800 Didn't Pilate have this same problem? The folks that have trouble with truth are the ones who really don't get it. Of course you don't know what truth is, it hasn't been revealed to you. When that happens, you know and you CAN stand in the pulpit and proclaim that you are absolutely certain. Josh "...the word of God is not bound." 2 Timothy 2:9 Didn’t Pilate have this same problem? The folks that have trouble with truth are the ones who really don’t get it. Of course you don’t know what truth is, it hasn’t been revealed to you. When that happens, you know and you CAN stand in the pulpit and proclaim that you are absolutely certain.

Josh
“…the word of God is not bound.” 2 Timothy 2:9

]]>