I'm a regular reader of the slacktivist, but it was Karen's post that made me go back and take a second look at something Fred had to say. (School has really cut into my blog-reading time.) Here's my take on Karen's take on Fred's take on evangelism:
___________________________________
The office is being repainted. Good-bye loony bin white walls. Hello flint smoke and rodeo red and a place for the windup toys, finger puppets, and Ox the ugly doll. The computer is uncovered as the last coat dries and I was able to read the wondrous Slacktivist's (the Left Behind series is one of the greatest things in the blog world) post on Hospitality versus Sales:
This happened, I think, when what ought to be an act of hospitality was transformed into an act of salesmanship. Salesmanship, whatever else it may be, is ultimately inhospitable.
We could go back and look at the causes of this perverse commodification of the gospel -- tracing the way that 19th-century evangelists like Charles Finney began adopting the techniques of salesmen, and how these techniques were further refined over the years by students of marketing like Bill Bright. But we needn't go into great detail here about how this happened to acknowledge that it has happened.
"Evangelism" today is not seen as the practice of hospitality, but as a kind of marketing scheme. It is not an invitation, but a sales pitch. Not a matter of "taste and see," but of "buy now." Or, to use one of my favorite descriptions of the work of evangelism, it is not "one beggar telling another beggar where he found bread," but rather one fat man trying to convince another fat man that he's a beggar in order to close the sale on another loaf.
Contemporary American-style evangelism is made even stranger by the fact that it seems devoid of content. It's become a turtles-all-the-way-down exercise with no apparent real bottom. Evangelism means, literally, the telling of good news. Surely there must be more to this good news than simply that the hearers of it become obliged to turn around and tell it to others. And those others, in turn, are obliged to tell still others the good news of their obligation to spread this news.
This reminded me of a clip from the movie, The Big Kahuna:
It doesn't matter whether you're selling Jesus or Buddha or civil rights or 'How to Make Money in Real Estate With No Money Down.' That doesn't make you a human being; it makes you a marketing rep. If you want to talk to somebody honestly, as a human being, ask him about his kids. Find out what his dreams are - just to find out, for no other reason. Because as soon as you lay your hands on a conversation to steer it, it's not a conversation anymore; it's a pitch. And you're not a human being; you're a marketing rep.
(emphasis mine)
___________________________________
Here's my (Mike's) addition to the conversation:
When you create a pitch for the product, inevitably the product is reduced to that pitch. Like a pyramid scheme where all the members send everyone above them $5, it really doesn't matter what the product is anymore, it's all about the system. In these get-rich-quick schemes we cut back on the product until it's just some cheap trinket to make the whole thing legal.
This is why I don't think it's enough to stop and look at the system (evangelism). We also need to consider what we've reduced the product (the Gospel) to, and that means asking difficult questions about our theology.
hear, hear.
I've experienced some of those marketing campaigns in my time at school, and they feel emptier every year. When we force Christians to become the "used-car salesmen" of the spiritual world, we cheapen all we have to offer. Like Marshall McLuhan said, "the medium is the message..." and our medium of these cheapened tactics have tainted whatver we are saying. I know that my campus crusade friends mean well and try hard, but the slick marketing campaigns and catchy slogans fool no one - everybody knows what is behind it, and everybody (often christians on campus too) feels like a "target."
This is a common rant for me, so I think I'll back down a bit here before I get too crazy. But I do have to say that I wonder what it says about we who take part in such things... what does it say about our faith if we must "market" it? I don't know if this is true all the time or not but it seems that marketing and flashy packaging and slick campaigns - even the "controlling" of the conversation may reflect a hidden fear that God's word isn't appealing enough to be shared in a normal way.
Posted by: jocelyn | February 24, 2006 at 10:28 AM
yes, yes, and yes.
We've been reduced to used car salesmen. Anyone wanna buy a slightly used Jesus? Only driven on Sundays by a little old lady.
Perhaps this has all come about because we've allowed ourselves to believe that faith is simply a mental agreement to a creed - all we have to do is TELL people, CONVINCE people, and shout loud enough that listening and loving and waiting on God to perform the roles He has clearly allowed only Himself are no longer necessary. And so people sign on - there's always people out there who will sign on to anything - but we're no closer to making disciples.
I like what Bruxy Cavey had to say about this in his Jesus Scandals series - if Jesus was marketing Himself he did a horrible job by today's standards.
Posted by: David | February 24, 2006 at 11:25 AM
David - thanks for the reminder of Bruxy's comment; that was good.
Jocelyn - well said. My point exactly - products are marketed. Relationships, changed lives, love... these things are demonstrated. So, it's not enough to reconsider the marketing. We need to take a serious look at what we've reduced the product to.
Posted by: Mike | February 24, 2006 at 03:03 PM
"We also need to consider what we've reduced the product (the Gospel) to, and that means asking difficult questions about our theology."
I've been asking you that for a while now Mike, what is the Gospel according to Mike Todd? Remembering that you tried being a believer but now don't think that is what He had in mind, what is it that you think/believe He did have in mind?
And then the bigger question for all of us is what comes in the end? What happens when we die? I wonder if you guys might agree with this: "Contemplating our end is the sacred ground of the mind. How well we envision our end has everything to do with how rightly or wrongly we will live our life now."
Come on Mike, I shared with you my thoughts/beliefs on the Gospel of Jesus Christ and how it has come to bear on my life. Don't you think its only fair, that you, being a world wide blogger, with a Christian focus, share your thoughts on the most important issue facing mankind today?
I can't help but read your sarcasm and criticism of what you would call the traditional/orthodox/fundamental Christian faith, why not tell the world what you believe the basic Gospel to be?
Posted by: george | February 25, 2006 at 07:08 PM
George: It's odd how you always ignore what the posts are about... and instead use them to get back to your agenda.
Jesus came to proclaim the Kingdom of God was/is at hand, here and now. He came to teach us how to live in it, thus participating in God's grand redemptive plan for creation. He came to make us his accomplices.
Now, can we get on with it? It's like we're all running that race Paul was talking about, but you keep calling us back to the starting line to see if our shoes are regulation.
Posted by: Mike | February 25, 2006 at 11:51 PM
I guess that's what I'm trying to figure out Mike, are we all running that same race.
I have to harken back to certain comments you have made in regards to the different aspects of the faith to see if we are at the same starting line.
The first thing Jesus said in proclaiming the Kingdom at hand is that we have to repent. Repent from what? Saved from what? In your gospel as I understand it, there is no hell. Yet Jesus talked about hell more than any other subject. So when I know that to be true and read your belief that there might not be a hell I truly wonder if we are at the same starting line and that's why I bring you back to that.
Its interesting in challenging people to back up their sometimes incredible statements, how so often they won't, because they really can't, they just hope it to be true. But then they themselves go on and on about how they view the traditional views on authentic biblical Christianity. They get on their high horse telling the Church where it has gone wrong but can't really say what they themselves believe. Or they refuse to.
I was hoping that was not the case with you so therefore the questions.
But if you still choose not to answer the most basic fundamental questions about salvation, eternal life, heaven, hell, sin, redemption, justification, sanctification, glorification I will pledge to leave you alone.
You must admit though I think, that your refusal to do so, effects the credibility of the message you are trying to bring.
Its all about Truth Mike. Truth with love but never compromising on the Truth. I love the ministy motto, contemporary without compromise.
Posted by: george | February 26, 2006 at 04:54 AM
Sigh... I'll tell you what, George. I'll respond to your last comment after you say something, anything, about the original intent of the post.
And, anyone esle... please... feel free to weigh in on the product pitch approach.
Posted by: Mike | February 26, 2006 at 09:14 AM
Ok fair enough Mike you said this: "This is why I don't think it's enough to stop and look at the system (evangelism). We also need to consider what we've reduced the product (the Gospel) to, and that means asking difficult questions about our theology."
Here's what I think the gospel has been reduced to with many of those in the so called emerging church, and many other places in the Church: say you love Jesus, become a social activist, tell the traditional church that they are all a bunch of hypocrites, concern yourselves only with poverty issues (a noble cause by the way but in and of itself not the gospel) drink good coffee, line yourselves up with the McLarens of the world and there you go you are all set. What you don't have to concern yourself with in that kind of a Christian environment is sin, repentance from sin, holy living, obedience to the great commandment to love God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, growing in Christ, becoming more like Christ, loving the people enough that you will tell them the Truth about eternal destinations, heaven and hell, deal with them in such a way that God might work in peoples hearts as a result and bring them into the Kingdom and I could go on and on.
I was at an inner city conference in Hamilton over this past Friday and Saturday where I was again shown how in so many people's lives who claim to follow Christ the main thing is no longer the main thing and social activism is where its at and don't even dare suggest that as the Church we need to go into all the world and proclaim the Gospel that can set people free. No way man, we are much too busy getting political and becoming social activists.
And I ask, how does God use that to transform lives and nobody can answer.
That's what the gospel has been reduced to in many many places Mike.
Posted by: george | February 26, 2006 at 03:08 PM
OK George: I might respond that while there are those who have made the means the end, but I would also say that what you have described is an expansion from the 4 spiritual laws and 5 points of Calvinism. If your Christianity isn't changing the world, it's not what Jesus was talking about, because the main thing is to participate in God's plan of redemption of creation.
Anyway, back to your comment. Jesus didn't talk about hell more than any other subject. He spoke most often of the Kingdom of God. (And when he did speak of 'hell', he used various ancient near east cultural terms for it.)
Also, I've now outlined what I believe for you (in the previous comment).
Posted by: Mike | February 26, 2006 at 04:19 PM
And he spoke more about poverty, money and justice than hell as well.
It's important to remember that Jesus did not come to set up yet another infallible system that is free from criticism and while criticism is easy if that's all you do, the majority of the people I know - whether or not they line themselves up with so-called Emergent - criticize only because they love Jesus more than they love the "Church" and they are at the same time working hard to make it a better "place" - a haven for the unloved, the sinners, the broken, the bedraggled.
I'll go a step futher and say that the folks I know that would more readily be identified as "emergent" give more of their money to the poor, spend more time in soup kitchens, are more likely to be missionaries and live on nothing, and see more lives changed, and that includes finding faith in a crucified and resurrected Son of God and beginning a journey of faithfulness. Sure, they are more likely to be seen at a pub or a coffee shop, and yes, they probably read more McLaren than Lewis, but both McLaren and Lewis have their detractors among the orthodox. Furthermore, these same people are more likely to understand the spiritual disciplines and know their Bibles. Odd for a group so easily marginalized by an older generation that gets hung up on words with no time to consider the truth intended by those words.
It may be, George, that no one in my generation uses the words sin, and repentance, justification, sanctification, or glorification because they have become meaningless to the people to whom we speak on a daily basis. Just like the word Christian. The reality/truth behind those words remains the same but as language changes we owe it to those whom we are trying to reach to speak their language and not force them into our own. The change in language does not mean we are no longer orthodox in belief, it means we've tried to tell the ancient, biblical story of a God who came to earth to bring the Kingdom of God to man, to seek and save, to heal and love, in a new way. Same story. Different words.
Furthermore, it may be that this generation, like every generation of people longing for a connection to their Creator, needs to see these so-called followers actually out there doing the work of Jesus before they listen to the message of Jesus. Your so-called activists may be evangelists of a different stripe and judging them before you hear them out and see their fruit is unkind at best, blasphemous at worse.
I promised myself not to get back into this, but I see a chance here for understanding. If there is one thing several of us have agreed on here, George, it is that you are not listening to us. You keep, as Mike says, checking to see that our running shoes meet standards but have no interest in hearing why we run the way we do, how we train, or - to keep drawing this metaphor out - how far, fast, or faithfully we can run. You want to be sure we call it by the right names and most of us are much happier ignoring the names and getting on with the task of running. Find something here that you can get onside with, something on which we can agree and find some unity on. Most of us don't seem too interested in further defending our faith - we're here because we're desperate to find better ways to live it than what we've seen in our past. We're not looking to earn salvation, but to work it out with fear and trembling - and if you take umbrage with those words resume your argument with scripture, not with us.
None of us question your sincerity, please stop questionning ours.
Posted by: David | February 26, 2006 at 05:43 PM
the majority of the people I know...criticize only because they love Jesus more than they love the "Church"
I guess what I've never understood about the emergent movement is why the church and Jesus have to be opposing partners. I mean, Christ loved the church. It also nags at the back of my mind that 'loving Jesus more' should theoretically lead away from criticism.
I see merit in the theories behind the emergent church. [I'm all for abandoning the marketing campaigns.] Still, when I see some of the theories in practice it leads me to wonder if it's not just another rehash of the same mistakes made by the church in the past.
Why can't the genuine relationships we strive for with people whose faith differs from our own extend to those who worship the same Lord but have a different take on things?
For me it feels like the fingers still point at the unwelcomed. The only things that's changed is the type of people who are unwelcome.
I mean I've always thought Christ called us to love our neighbour...even George.
It's just that all of this is what makes me reluctant to buy into it all. Maybe some day my concerns will be resolved.
For what it's worth.
Posted by: Leslie | February 26, 2006 at 07:39 PM
A number of random thoughts at the end of a very busy Sunday, some in response to the original post, some to the comments.
The 'evangelism as salesmanship' approach does not require us to change anything about the fundamental orientation of our lives. Evangelism becomes a program 'tacked on' on the outside, but not the outward looking lifestyle of the kingdom. Genuine caring evangelism is a way of life marked by building relationships, listening, giving words of witness, and deep persistent prayer.
Still, I'm not sure I'm in complete agreement with the blanket condemnation of any attempt to steer a conversation. I think a balanced approach is necessary. Most of us need to do a lot more listening, agreed, but I also think there's a difference between 'steering' and 'manipulating'.
George said:
Here's what I think the gospel has been reduced to with many of those in the so called emerging church, and many other places in the Church: say you love Jesus, become a social activist, tell the traditional church that they are all a bunch of hypocrites, concern yourselves only with poverty issues (a noble cause by the way but in and of itself not the gospel) drink good coffee, line yourselves up with the McLarens of the world and there you go you are all set. What you don't have to concern yourself with in that kind of a Christian environment is sin, repentance from sin, holy living, obedience to the great commandment to love God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, growing in Christ, becoming more like Christ, loving the people enough that you will tell them the Truth about eternal destinations, heaven and hell, deal with them in such a way that God might work in peoples hearts as a result and bring them into the Kingdom and I could go on and on.
I myself am a member of what George calls here a 'traditional' church - I'm a rather ordinary Anglican priest, I lead liturgical services every Sunday at which we say the Apostles' Creed, share in the Eucharist which is the only service Jesus ever gave his disciples, read from the scriptures the Catholic Church has always read from etc. etc. Furthermore, we are about to enter the season of Lent, in which we pay a great deal of attention to sin, repentance, loving God with all our heart, becoming like Christ etc. etc. At our church we run 'Christian Basics' courses for inquirers regularly, and it is a normal feature of life in our congregation to see people embark on a journey into faith in Christ. We also put a lot of money and energy into supporting ministries of compassion, from inner-city soup kitchens all the way to the World Vision 'goat and duck' appeal. And we drink fair trade coffee and are proud of it, because it means the farmers get a better deal instead of being exploited - I think that's part of loving your neighbour as yourself.
Yes, there are times when I accuse the traditional church of hypocrisy, but I do it as a member of the traditional church myself.
When I read the New Testament I don't find that 'heaven' is the eternal destination of the Christian. I find its' a temporary rest on the road to the resurrection of the body. I find that Jesus is going to be revealed as Lord of all, that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess this, that the dead will be raised, and that the city of God will come down from heaven to earth.
When it comes to 'hell' (the Greek NT actually often uses the words 'Hades' and 'Gehenna', which mean something rather different from the popular view of hell), I find a number of images used there, some of them literally incompatible with each other (if we are being literal, a place cannot at the same time be 'the outer darkness' and 'where their fire is not quenched' - fire is not dark!). That it is possible for a human being to so decisively and irrevocably reject God, and thus reject all that is for their own good, that God would decide that the kindest thing to do for such a person was to put them out of their misery - yes, I can believe that. That there will be no surprises on that day, in the face of the clear teaching of Jesus in the parable of the sheep and the goats - that I cannot believe.
Finally, can I say that I resonate with David's comment. I've been following Jesus for 34 years next Sunday. God knows I'm far away from where I should be, but I keep plugging away trying to love God with all my heart and love my neighbour as myself, with the help of the Holy Spirit. I find it rather wearing, frankly, to have every second post I write jumped on by someone who seems to think I'm a fake Christian.
Posted by: Tim | February 26, 2006 at 08:19 PM
Leslie - you're right, and I think there are those in any "camp" who criticize because it's what they do and it's destructive. But I don't think criticizing is mutually exclusive of love and I think we need to be careful that we don't make the mistake of making the church something it is not. Christ loves the Church - the body of believers past, present and future, redeemed by Him - not the structure, the building, the demoninations but the people. However, the church - small "c" - is not above reproach and we need to be finding new ways to respond to the ancient call.
I think you're right also about reacting and then committing the same mistakes over again - that's the challenge. Some folks get it, some don't. Regardless of how they "do church", emergent or otherwise.
And I agree that we are called to love our neighbors, and our enemies (not calling George an enemy) - however it does not mean we agree. And to be fair I think what most of us want here is to be heard by George. We have no problem involving him in our discussion, we just don't feel like being hijacked into a discussion none of us asked to be in.
And I don't think you should "buy into it all" - I don't think anyone should. i think what is important is that we all at least listen to the questions. In a church that is free of the burden/blessing of apostolic authority we have a great deal of responsibility to figure out some of this stuff for ourselves - and if we get it wrong I should hope God calls up people to rock the boat and raise some questions.
Whether we get it right or not remains to be seen, but I think every generation reacts to the one before, we swing too far, we come back to something like balance, and we get it figured out (or not) just in time to die and join Christ. It's those that figure they have nothing further to learn that are in danger most of all of not truly loving the Church.
Thanks for responding to me - i think when these kinds of things are done with kindness from all sides (not something I always do, regrettably) they are worth a great deal.
Posted by: David | February 26, 2006 at 08:30 PM
Now were talking guys.
David: You said: "It may be, George, that no one in my generation uses the words sin, and repentance, justification, sanctification, or glorification because they have become meaningless to the people to whom we speak on a daily basis. Just like the word Christian."
So David when you are sharing the gospel with someone and you get to the part where you have to tell them that it is their sin that separates them from God but that God loves them and has provided a way for them to be reconciled to Him as they repent of their sin and place their trust in His only Son Jesus Christ - when you get to that part, how do you tell them that? If you don't use words like sin and repent anymore what exactly do you tell them?
Mike you said this: "OK George: I might respond that while there are those who have made the means the end, but I would also say that what you have described is an expansion from the 4 spiritual laws and 5 points of Calvinism. If your Christianity isn't changing the world, it's not what Jesus was talking about, because the main thing is to participate in God's plan of redemption of creation.
I'll be honest with you Mike I've heard those terms before, the 4 spiritual laws and the 5 points of Calvinism, but I don't have a clue what that means. Having said that I will now have to research that after what you said. (See how this gets educational - its great) I'm just saying what I know to be true from God's Word and the application in my own life. If that's 4 laws and 5 points I guess that's ok with me.
"the main thing is to participate in God's plan of redemption of creation" What does that mean Mike? One more question Mike; when Jesus said this in Luke 12: " 4"Dear friends, don't be afraid of those who want to kill you. They can only kill the body; they cannot do any more to you. 5But I'll tell you whom to fear. Fear God, who has the power to kill people and then throw them into hell." - what do you think He meant by that?
Or what do you think Paul meant when he said this in Colossians 3: 5So put to death the sinful, earthly things lurking within you. Have nothing to do with sexual sin, impurity, lust, and shameful desires. Don't be greedy for the good things of this life, for that is idolatry. 6God's terrible anger will come upon those who do such things. 7You used to do them when your life was still part of this world. 8But now is the time to get rid of anger, rage, malicious behavior, slander, and dirty language. 9Don't lie to each other, for you have stripped off your old evil nature and all its wicked deeds. 10In its place you have clothed yourselves with a brand-new nature that is continually being renewed as you learn more and more about Christ, who created this new nature within you. 11In this new life, it doesn't matter if you are a Jew or a Gentile,[b] circumcised or uncircumcised, barbaric, uncivilized,[c] slave, or free. Christ is all that matters, and he lives in all of us."
What's the anger of God do you think and how will His anger be revealed on the day of judgement do you think?
Tim, I'm sorry man but I just have a real hard time with your theology when it comes to this "virtuous unbeliever" thing. I guess the biggest question I have for you in that regard is how good do you have to be to become a "virtuous unbeliever" that God is going to accept you into the kingdom based on your good works. By the way, nowhere in Scripture is that doctrine found, you are just hoping that it is true and in so doing are possibly giving people false hope. How good does one have to be Tim, half as good as Stephen Lewis? Would a quarter as good as Stephen Lewis get me in? Where do you draw the line with that? Do you preach that doctrine in your church?
This past week in my devotional time I have been truly impacted by this little interaction that Jesus had with the scribe in Mark 12:
28One of the teachers of religious law was standing there listening to the discussion. He realized that Jesus had answered well, so he asked, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
29Jesus replied, "The most important commandment is this: `Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is the one and only Lord. 30And you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.'[f] 31The second is equally important: `Love your neighbor as yourself.'[g] No other commandment is greater than these."
32The teacher of religious law replied, "Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth by saying that there is only one God and no other. 33And I know it is important to love him with all my heart and all my understanding and all my strength, and to love my neighbors as myself. This is more important than to offer all of the burnt offerings and sacrifices required in the law."
34Realizing this man's understanding, Jesus said to him, "You are not far from the Kingdom of God." And after that, no one dared to ask him any more questions.
I was struck by Jesus' comment that the scribe was not far from the kingdom of heaven. He had the head knowledge and belief but at that point in time he obviously didn't have it in his heart and Jesus knew that because of course He knows our hearts.
In many conversations I have with the so called emerging church people I often wonder how much they love God. They say they love Jesus but when you then see and read and hear their language, when you read about stuff they watch, when you see how compromised by the world they are without even realizing it themselves (or refusing to see it) I truly wonder about how much they love God for what He has done for them. If we truly love God for what He has done for us that is also going to show up in how we live holy lives for His glory. Set apart from the world. Being obedient to Him. Loving Him with all our hearts. I'm not talking about things we do because we have to I'm talking about obdience to Him and a life that glorifies Him because we are so incredibly thankful for what He has done for us in extending His grave to us. If you have experienced his grace in your own life how can that not show up in your holiness and your turning from sin?
Good night guys I'll check in with you later. Have a great week seeking the Lord.
Posted by: george | February 26, 2006 at 09:22 PM
George, you didn't respond to a thing I said! You simply brought up the old 'Stephen Lewis/virtuous unbeliever' thing again! Are you saying that the 2% of my theology you disagree with is more important to you than the 98% we have in common? Or, do you disagree with more than that? By the way, for the most part it isn't 'my theology'; it's the theology that has been believed by most Christians most of the time throughout history.
Will there be surprises on the day of judgement? Jesus apparently thinks so. In Matthew 7 he says that not everyone who calls him 'Lord' will enter the kingdom, but only the one who does the will of his Father in heaven (and in the context, that 'will' means the sermon on the mount). In Matthew 25 some of the sheep are not aware that they were serving Christ and are surprised to be welcomed into his kingdom. I'm sorry if you can't handle the scriptures or the words of Jesus, George, but it's right there.
Finally, I don't know whether you have ever met Mike, David, or Jocelyn. I do know for certain that you have never met me. How, then, do you know that we are compromised with the world, that we are not doing our best to turn from sin and live lives of holiness? How do you know that?
You are very strong on the scriptures. Perhaps you need to check in on the verses which caution against judging. Disagreeing with someone is one thing. Accusing them of unholiness and sin is something completely different. Tread carefully, brother; 'For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you'. Someone said that in the Gospels, if I remember correctly. As you would say, 'He said it, not me'.
By the way, you ended your post by encouraging us to have a great week seeking the Lord. Isaiah 58 gives us instructions on how to do that, I believe. I trust you're giving it your full attention?
Posted by: Tim | February 26, 2006 at 10:00 PM
On a more humorous note, and in harmony with Mike's original question about marketing or hospitality, go to Joe's blog:
http://joewalker.blogs.com/felixhominum/2006/02/monster_truck_c.html
Have a good laugh!
Posted by: Tim | February 26, 2006 at 10:05 PM
But I don't think criticizing is mutually exclusive of love
A delicate balance, I think.
And I don't think you should "buy into it all" - I don't think anyone should. i think what is important is that we all at least listen to the questions.
Agreed. But surely all the questions are important. I guess I feel like many times they aren't all regarded equally.
we just don't feel like being hijacked into a discussion none of us asked to be in.
I hear this type of reference in all kinds of conversations all over the place from all kinds of people, so obviously this is widely felt.
To me the concept of loving people where they're at is another fabulous one, so then it's hard for me to understand why when a fellow Christian approaches who's at a place that for instance, 'none of us asked to be in', it's felt to be a hijacking whereas with a member of any other worldview or perspective it would be seen as an opportunity to love.
I don't know, it just seems like a persistent duality that I can't quite come to terms with.
Posted by: Leslie | February 26, 2006 at 10:22 PM
Leslie - I really appreciate your comments, most especially your gentleness in asking. I agree that we need to keep in mind that we must graciously accept all types of questions and questioners... even those amongst us. It's the way we would want to be treated.
It occurs to me that it's important that we keep a certain amount of discernment about us. If we can learn anything from Jesus' life we can learn that there are always going to be questioners and hecklers. Some you answer, some you don't. It's not the questions that we must object to, for if we are honest about being spiritually teachable, we must be willing to be taught by those around us (I believe whether they are christian or not, they can teach us), but it is the intent. I don't know George enough to be able to say what his intention is here, except that I have noticed that this is his favourite bone and that he brings it up whenever possible. We do need to once in awhile, take a look at our theology, and it sounds to me like that's what George is wanting us to do.
That being said, I find it really irritating that blanket statements are being made, particularly in terms of "Emergent" people. This is almost as if we are putting a new denomination together and calling them all the same - something nobody should be comfortable with. George, the people you associate with Emergent sound either like they are perhaps "going through the motions," or you misread them. I have to say, not that I know all that many Emergent folks (mostly from blogs, to be honest - my church is very straight-up baptist), but all those I've met have walked the walk and talked the talk. I am proud to call myself a believer beside these people, knowing that they love Jesus, serve him alone, and act it out every day.
I believe that many times, it is possible to evaluate believers based on "fruit," and boy there is some fruit here. You must agree, because you are using the "fruit" of these "so-called emergent types" to judge them: They say they love Jesus but when you then see and read and hear their language, when you read about stuff they watch, when you see how compromised by the world they are without even realizing it themselves (or refusing to see it)
Not to single Mike out, but he left a life behind back east to pursue the work of God - he and his wife support a ministry with their blood, sweat and tears that - speaks to the physical, mental and spiritual needs of vulnerable women. I ask you this - what reason would anybody have to do any of this if not because God has invaded their lives completely? It seems to me, George, though I respect your questions and your right as a brother to ask them, that perhaps you can't see the forest for the trees. The answer to your question has been on this blog all the time, for every day, Mike's faith is walked out here for all to see. Sure, he makes mistakes, as we all do, and for sure he uses words you either don't like or are unfamiliar with, but what I know of mike definitely shows the evidence to me.
It's so hard to watch a conversation like this unfold and not simply protest the point of it at all. Why is this guilty until proven innocent when the evidence is overwhelming? Could it be that, as Tim said, the 2% on which you differ (which I strongly suspect is a matter of language anyway) may not be mutually exclusive?
George, it seems to me that the problem we are having here is not one of unorthodoxy, but one of language. I have read many of these posts after they were written and discovered that the comments go around and around the same point - Mike et al. aren't using the words you are most looking for, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. The proof you want may not be in a form you are willing to take.
Now, in the spirit of your question, I must answer - because you have apparently asked this of Mike and those who walk with him on the road, and I would count myself as one. Your question is not a bad one, and one we should all be willing to understand about our own theology. Thing is, many of your terms (justification, sanctification, etc) don't make sense to me, because I wasn't really raised to be doctrine-literate. I know what I've managed to glean from God and church and the Bible for the last 7 years, that I met Christ, realized my distance from Him, accepted that I had had a wrong concept of him (and of God) and asked him to clean me out and replace everything in me with Himself. [i do believe that means I repented, was forgiven and
"surrendered to his lordship"] I know that God has listened over the past several years, I've asked some of the most painful questions, and I know that even now as I fumble my way back to him that he has welcomed them.
Sorry, I realize this is long, and what I've written may make no sense at all. It's way past my bedtime!
Posted by: jocelyn | February 27, 2006 at 12:55 AM
" Are you saying that the 2% of my theology you disagree with is more important to you than the 98% we have in common?"
Tim in my opinion your 2% permeates the rest. Its amazing to me where you have just gone to try to defend your theology. You would have us believe that one can refuse Christ, reject Him, tell the world one doesn't need Him, but then be surprised that God will bring one into the kingdom anyway because of one's good works. That's wrong Tim and its a disgrace to the cross of Christ. You're saying He only died for some people.
Tim you also said this:"Finally, I don't know whether you have ever met Mike, David, or Jocelyn. I do know for certain that you have never met me. How, then, do you know that we are compromised with the world, that we are not doing our best to turn from sin and live lives of holiness? How do you know that?"
That's a fair comment, I wasn't referring to them specifically I'm referring to Emergents generally and from what I've noticed. I'm not judging I'm just wondering. All you have to do is check many of their blogs and see what their favourite movies are and one can begin to wonder about those things that's for sure.
Hav a great day everyone, its cold and sunny here in the center of the universe;)
Posted by: george | February 27, 2006 at 04:35 AM
Its amazing to me where you have just gone to try to defend your theology.
I believe that 'where I went' was the words of Jesus. Sorry you have a problem with them, George; he said it, not me.
Posted by: Tim | February 27, 2006 at 06:26 AM
George, at the risk of drawing this out, I want to repeat my assertion that you are not listening to us. Especially Tim. You have gleaned from his comments a theology that is not there and a soteriology he has not espoused.
George, Faith asks questions and often we wrestle with a God we love deeply because what we think we know of Him does not mesh with the answers we think we see in scripture. And ultimately faith leaps over those things we don't understand and says, "still I believe". You've raised excellent points, though you refuse to see that time and again we've responded to them - you just don't like our language. I wrestle with notions of hell - and I am not sure we've been respectful of scripture in our interpretation of the passages on hell - and I wrestle with notions of people I see as Good, being sent there by a God I believe is Love. All the same, He is Justice as well. And Truth. And in the end none of this wrestling takes away from my knowing (in the faith sense) that I am redeemed from my brokenness by God made flesh, crucified and resurrected. Read the apostles creed - I subscribe to it all, but that does not mean my faith is free of the wrestling, George.
There are plenty of ways of telling a broken world seperated by God by our own actions and nature that it is broken and seperated from God. One does not need to use the word SIN to communicate a reality that is much older than the word itself. Suppose you went to the jungles of Peru and they had no such word - would you insist they learn the word or would you find new ways of telling them. What if their word for sin had come simply to mean "a slight error with no apparent consequence" would you still soldier on and insist they use the word, knowing full well that in doing so you were perpetuating a misunderstanding? What if you worked in the islamic world and the word Christian meant someone who is lazy, has loose morals and eats pig fat? Would you soldier on or would you find a way to say you follow Jesus without introducing yet another avoidable obstacle on the road to faith?
This is about language, George. I can speak only for myself when I say that if you go to the Apostle's Creed, you will me in faith-agreement. Even if I wrestle with it, even if I never understand it. God is much, much bigger than my understanding and if I do not wrestle past the simplistic answers then I am not getting closer to the God of my heart and soul's affection.
Please stop the inquisition, George. if you are a brother then you are commanded to seek unity - not my words, but those of the Christ you follow. If we are unbelievers then you need to listen to us, be gentle with us, and let the God in whom you believe so strongly do the work only He can do in the process of our salvation - which is to lead us into truth, to grant us repentance, to correct our ways, to transform our minds, and to lead us from darkness to light. it's one of the other, George, or everything you yourself have said about salvation is invalid.
Can you not see how abrasive and offensive you have been? We are not offended by the message of the cross, but by you. Truth be told i find it hard to be kind to you because I am so sick of being bullied. Who asked you to jump into this conversation and disrespect us, and treat us so unkindly? Were this your blog I understand why you might feel the need to be so heavy-handed. But it isn't. (It's not mine either, so these comments are admittedly presumptuous, sorry Mike.) All the same I am trying - perhaps for the first time here, I admit - to respond in a way that might lead us to understanding each other. I am aware I do not always practice what I preach. I'm sorry that I have been reactionary and unkind in previous discussions.
Having said that, can you please just put this on the shelf and listen for a while? Wait and see where our conversations lead and learn silently on the sidelines, or ask the odd question our of humilty and gentleness? Pray for us and our wayward souls? Anything, but please stop this spiritual abuse. None of us is here to argue, we're here, as I have said before to learn from each other in a spirit of "hey, you're heading that way? So am I, let's go there together and see if we can learn from each other on the way." and that does not happen when a travelling companion insists on jumping out from the bushes with the soldiers of the inquisition every five minutes.
Start your own blog. You certainly have more than enough time on your hands. People could come to you and you could fight all you wanted.
Have you noticed Robert is gone?
Posted by: David | February 27, 2006 at 07:12 AM
Mike:
I know your probably tired of this, but could you remind us of the original post again. I think I forgot.
Posted by: Pete | February 27, 2006 at 08:10 AM
Jocelyn --
Thanks for your response.
It's not the questions that we must object to, for if we are honest about being spiritually teachable, we must be willing to be taught by those around us
Absolutely. I guess from my perspective I don't see this happening quite as much as I'd hoped. And I say that with the thought that this goes way farther than George and this blog. There have been many times where I've asked questions which have been met with an angry, defensiveness that leaves me wondering if embracing the questions is really what it's all about. That's just my experience. Obviously that's not everyone's practice, but I've run across it enough to make me feel skittish each time I enter into a discussion. It just leads me to question the movement because, like the church of old, it looks to me to be full of things that shouldn't be mentioned...it just feels like what is unmentionable is all that has changed.
That being said, I find it really irritating that blanket statements are being made, particularly in terms of "Emergent" people.
I can see how you'd be frustrated by this. Still, glancing through even just this thread there are words like 'us' and 'we' (sometimes used generically, sometimes not) that suggests a bit of a groupish feel exists. I understand that the emergent movement is loosely defined and very individual, some of the messages being sent feel mixed.
As to the definition of the words, I agree that they have lost meaning for most people. I guess it saddens me to think of abandoning them or relegating them to the background. When put in context and fully understood the concepts are quite beautiful. For me, and I recognize this isn't everyone's cup of tea, it is why I'm so passionate about apologetics. Because the more I learn and the more fluent I become in the language of old, the easier I find it is to translate and introduce the misunderstood words to the people who are leery of them.
It just doesn't have to be so bad.
Posted by: Leslie | February 27, 2006 at 08:27 AM
At this stage my only input (other than to express regret that the conversation regarding the actual post was quickly taken off the rails) is to comment on something that Leslie and Jocelyn have touched on.
While I would probably be considered as an "emerging church" type by many (and indeed I'm in a never-ending battle with Technorati to have my blog labeled as such), it's a term that I fundamentally reject. I make it a point to avoid the "we's" and "us's" unless it is in a very generic sense.
There is a lot that I am learning from "emerging church" folks, although I hasten to add I have much more affinity for what is happening in the UK (predominantly coming out of mainline churches) over the US (with it's mainly evangelical lineage.) In the end, you can call me what you like.
Some of folks that inspire me the most come from more "traditional" settings. And, some of the ones that cause me to shake me head the most are emerging church-types. The emerging genre is too loose to define right just yet. In some ways its like talking about people who wear blue socks - its doesn't tell you much about them.
The goal and purpose of this blog is chronicle and expand the journey of learning what it means to be an Apprentice of Christ. Some days I find meaning and inspiration from Brian McLaren, Len Sweet and David Crowder, and some from Billy Graham, Joan Chittester and Tony Campolo.
Let's not (any of us) lose sight of the forest for the trees.
Posted by: Mike | February 27, 2006 at 09:06 AM
You and your blog are succeeding, Mike. I am learning what it means to be an Apprentice of Christ, in spite of or perhaps _because of_ discussions being taken off the rails.
Posted by: Elaine | February 27, 2006 at 09:36 AM
Mike, your blog is a very important part of my own evolving journey of apprenticeship. So - thanks.
Having said that, I just want you all to know that you won't be hearing from me for a while. Lent is just around the corner - it starts on Wednesday - and as a Lent discipline I'm going to severely cut down my internet use in order to free up more time for other important things, and to try to regain some balance in my life. One of the things I'm going to cut out altogether is leaving comments on other people's blogs.
So - don't worry, I haven't 'gone off in a huff' or anything. I'll see you all again after Easter. Meantime, for those of you who observe it, have a blessed and holy Lent.
Your friend and bro in Christ,
Tim
Posted by: Tim | February 27, 2006 at 11:33 AM
I'll see you later guys, I'm done too. This is more than just language though David. I appreciated your last comments but this is more than language. This is about Truth issues.
When you suggest there is no hell, when you suggest an intellectual like Stephen Lewis gets in because of his good works even though he rejects Jesus Christ, when you start suggesting those things then this is more then just language this is about biblical truth. I know where I stand and as I engage in these types of discussions, which admittedly take up too much of my time, my convictions only deepen.
I know guys like you and Mike are trying to figure it all out and I do hope and pray that you do and will arrive at some convictions.
But I have a real hard time with someone like Tim. Its so subtle but its there and I see it. I keep going back to it and you might say ad nauseum because its big, because its the slippery slope for sure. I'm not going to go back to his original quote but he said that he believed that Stephen Lewis gets in because of his good deeds to others. An amazing statement it seems to me because it says that the cross is not necessary for those who are real good in their humanitarian outreach. That's a works gospel, then he actually goes on to try and defend it. That's false teaching according to Scripture. But its so subtle because it sounds so good. The wisdom of man as opposed to what God actually has said.
Anyway I've annoyed you guys enough and pledged to leave so I will. When I'm in Vancouver I'll look you up and we'll go drink some good coffee somewhere and hash this out some more.
Ciao for now.
Posted by: george | February 27, 2006 at 08:05 PM
George - I can't believe I'm doing this, but...
I'm open to the suggestion that Stephen Lewis gets in for good behaviour. I don't know. The in or out language doesn't really work for me, but I'm making a point. Your point about the cross is intriguing. I think I need to hear more about what you believe the cross did for us.
Posted by: Mike | February 27, 2006 at 08:48 PM
George, I appreciate the conversation - I'm learning that in blogs, we can't always keep the conversation "on the rails," and that's obviously where the interesting stuff begins. I wonder if this conversation highlights one of the many areas in the faith that require a balance (from my YWAM days that was a mantra for us - "It's all about the balance"). It is important to know what it is you believe - this I know from experience that when the going gets tough, for yourself or for others, you need to have a grasp on what it is that you are doing it for. But it is also important to be teachable, open to the Holy Spirit, and accepting of where other people are in their journey - even more, to be willing to listen to the menaing behind the words, and the content behind the life.
Leslie:
Because the more I learn and the more fluent I become in the language of old, the easier I find it is to translate and introduce the misunderstood words to the people who are leery of them.
This is a really good point, and it reminded me that for all of my impertinence of last night's post, I left out one little bit - though I go to a church that would be considered "evangelical," I often find it difficult to nail down what it is they mean by words that are used by the old-time baptists in my church: Justification, Sanctification, etc. They have definite meanings in their heads as to what those things are, and can't always clearly communicate it. I grew up in the Anglican church, and so I am more familiar with the creeds and prayers... That language speaks to me - I far more understand a statement of faith than a single word that would try to describe a whole concept. But that being said, I appreciate your point about knowing the "old words" so that we can explain them to others and 'translate' them for a new generation, and I think it's one that I need to take to heart. Often I "throw the baby out with the bathwater" feeling that if I can't understand and am frustrated with the old ways, then every part of that must need to go. Not true - in fact, that's one of the most curious things about younger, perhaps more modern, believers: there is that element of reaching back to the christian mystics, the St. Augustines, the creeds, and the ancient liturgies for meaning in a confusing world. If we are doing that, then perhaps it is a sign that our ignorance of those "big words" of old-time evangelicalism has more to do with our feelings about the church they came from than the actual words themselves..
...just some more nighttime ramblings.
Posted by: jocelyn | February 27, 2006 at 10:45 PM
Jocelyn -- I've always attended a church that would not be considered evangelical, yet have studied in a bible school that would be...
What you said was not rambling. It was insightful observation.
Posted by: Leslie | February 28, 2006 at 08:20 AM
" I think I need to hear more about what you believe the cross did for us."
Why? What's not clear?
Posted by: george | February 28, 2006 at 08:12 PM
Just a quick note... I responded to George via email on this one.
I actually think I'll do up a separate post on the issue of the atonement, because that question is so foundational to... well, everything else. There's the doctrine of penal substitution; that is, we're sinners, and someone has to pay the price, so Jesus did it for us. Then there's sacrificial atonement (I think I made that up) where Jesus on the cross is representative of the final sacrifice being made for the forgiveness of sins, marking the end of the Jewish sacrificial system. And there's others.
I'm leaning toward the latter these days, while many would embrace the former. (I have a friend who signs her emails "It's Jesus or Hell", which I actually find offensive.)
My point is this: If I think the latter, and you think the former, then any discussion we have on the issue of salvation turns into an apples and oranges thing. Interesting problem.
Posted by: Mike | March 01, 2006 at 07:15 PM
Sooo...it can't be both?
:-)
Posted by: David | March 01, 2006 at 08:24 PM