Creating community through interfaith conversation and interaction? at Jason Clark

The UK government earlier this week launched a consultation on how the government can best support faith communities’ engagement with one another and with their local communities.

Addressing a reception attended by over 200 representatives of Britain’s faith communities, including the archbishop of canterbury, the secretary of state, Hazel Blears, Secretary of State said:

“”Faith groups are a key part of the way we respond to the challenges we face from building strong resilient communities to tackling anti-social behaviour.

“This consultation provides us with an opportunity to find out how Government can best support dialogue between faith groups and the circumstances in which inter faith activity is helping to make a positive difference to communities around the country…”

There are a number of organisations in the UK such as interfaith (for faith dialogue) and faithworks (for faith groups who want to help their comminity) that already lead by example, providing encouragement, support and guidance but the government is clearly interested in what is taking place at a local level and what they can do to help.

The consultation will look to discover what is needed to widen and deepen inter faith dialogue and social action. In particular it will seek to:

1. Understand how to best build confidence in the benefits of partnership working and develop a greater understanding of the contribution that faith communities can make

2. Discover to what extent local authorities and other public bodies are already working with faith communities

3. Understand better the structures which facilitate interaction and social action and how can these be best developed

4. Learn about some of the barriers to inter faith activity – especially in connection with the involvement of women and young people – and how we might best work together to overcome these

So in terms of your own faith/local community, your experiences, networks etc I’d love to know please how would you respond to the consultation questions – what is happening where you live and work that you or your community is involved in? What would make it easier or more effective? What are the barriers but also the success stories that inspire you.

If you are not from the UK it would still be great to pleae hear your thoughts and experiences as we can learn from what is happening in other parts of the world and be inspired.

Please do let others know about the consultation and if you intend to respond to it as well…

Paul Mayers

Tagged: consultation, dialogue, interfaith, social action

53 comments

Trackback

Comment by Bryan Riley

12.38 am on 26 Dec 2007

This wasn’t the purpose of your post, but I’ve seen bumper stickers with that coexist message on them. I’ve wondered if that is such a great message. I don’t think love simply coexists. Jesus, who is love, did so much more than exist when He walked on this earth. I don’t want to coexist only; I want to live, love, encourage, serve, and grow with everyone!
Comment by Paul

9.08 am on 26 Dec 2007

Thanks Bryan, i think your thoughts get into the heart of inter faith dialogue – it seems to me that we can either be in the dangerous position of either not caring about the fact that each faith exists or caring too much about our own existence such that we deny the right to others.

I think Jesus shows us through his living and loving a path that was about laying down our rights and caring about others and not just ourselves. That for me suggests that the starting point is the right for others to be different and engage with them in life allowing for their differences – in looking for the common rather than killing ground (either through apathy or anger…)
Comment by Jorge

1.05 am on 28 Dec 2007

Utter foolishness! What does light have to do with darkness? Nothing,but to expose it!
Just more signs pointing to Christ soon return-the apostate church!
1. Comment by Paul
  
  5.11 pm on 28 Dec 2007
  
  Thanks Jorge, good of you to join in the conversation. Are you saying talking with other people regardless of their belief is foolishness? I’m interested how you work verses like Matt 5:14 into your thinking on light/dark and the work of christians in encouraging values like peace, justice, love, mercy etc in our world?
Comment by Eskil

11.12 am on 28 Dec 2007

Jorge: What does light have to do with darkness? Quite a lot, I would say. If your child got seriously ill, would you take it to a Christian plumber rather than a Moslem doctor? Because the Christian is “in the light” and the Moslem is in darkness? I would prefer the Moslem doctor!

The point here is that there are some good people – and some good projects – in other religions. If we can work with them on projects that help people in our communities: Then why not? Of course we should keep our message clear, but at the same time not be afraid of engaging with people of different faiths
Comment by Orlando

4.49 pm on 28 Dec 2007

This is madness! Are so many people more interested in having peace with the world rather than obeying God? Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, nobody comes to the Father except by Him (John 14:6). Nobody! No matter how ’socially responsible’ they are. Please! I beg you!, come back to the Word of God and repent from this compromising with the world.

James 4:4 You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.

Why oh why is part of the church trying to engage with unbelievers in this way? The only communication that the church as the body of the believers must have with unbelievers is preaching the Word, which alone has the power of salvation. (Rom 1:16).

Can we dissobey God so openly? Are we wiser than Him?

2 Corinthians 6:14-15
(14) Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?
(15) What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?

And lastly, to make it clear:
1Co 10:20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that you should have fellowship with devils.

So have it right: muslims, buddists, etc. they all serve demons and not God, as Jesus is the only way to God.

I beg you to abandon your intelectual pride and go back to the Word of God.
Comment by Paul

5.13 pm on 28 Dec 2007

Thanks Orlando, i don’t recall that Jesus was a mime artist or a non-stop preacher – it strikes me that he used a number of conversational gambits, questions and interactions, maybe it’s worth trying to listen and converse rather than see who can shout the loudest and longest?
Comment by Orlando

7.45 pm on 28 Dec 2007

Paul, and all others readers of this comments. Both “listen and converse” and “finding out who can shout the loudest and longest” are things that appeal to the flesh. Jesus is God, and is a terrible approach to try to see the things He did through some modern communication theory labels and not through what they meant. If Jesus spoke in parables was because:

Matthew 13:10-11
(10) Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?”
(11) And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.

So, Jesus did not use parables to be “cool” or to “engage” people in “conversation”, but to fulfill the prophets as He later says:

Matthew 13:13-15
(13) This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
(14) Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: “‘You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.
(15) For this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.’

Moreover, how Jesus and the Apostles preached the Gospel? Engaging people? Making games? Or rather presenting the Scriptures, which some of them accepted and some not, as each one was destined to do?

To all that may hear, listed to what God has said:

1 Corinthians 2:1-5
(1) And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom.
(2) For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.
(3) And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling,
(4) and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,
(5) that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

And again:

Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

And that’s at the core of all this “conversational movement”: human wisdom. Men trying to explain God in their own terms dissobeying what God has revealed in his Word. Will conversation save any man’s soul? No. What will? The gospel. But there are some that are ashamed of the gospel and think they know better than God:

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

and also,

Philippians 3:17-19
(17) Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us.
(18) For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ.
(19) Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things.

So you have been warned. Your soul (and the souls of those who follow you) are at stake. Will you continue in your hardened heart or will you go back to God with all your heart, mind and soul?

And lastly:
2Ti 2:16 But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness,

So far, you are into such track. This is a warning of the great danger you put yourself and those that follow you. I have done what is necessary to do (see Ezekiel 33), and this is my last comment on your blog. I do hope you might repent and go back to God.
1. Comment by Orlando
  
  8.14 pm on 28 Dec 2007
  
  An addedum. It is sad how many people is being deceived into believing another gospel. Another gospel, where there is no mention of sin, holyness, repentance, sanctification; and all these things have been replaced by social justice, climate change, disaster relief, etc. See the letter to the Galatians to read a vivid warning of falling into such deceit. To all that may read: Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected for our justification, Jesus was NOT a political leader, salvation is about heaven/hell, not about our earthly sufferings, the Bible is the ultimate revelation of God and defining authority on all aspects of Christian life and worship and not a cooking book from which we can omit certain things and take what we like. To all that may read: be alert and do not follow the false prophets!
  1. Comment by Paul
    
    2.36 am on 30 Dec 2007
    
    For the record i would agree with you, if people just thought the gospel was about humanitarian relief efforts that would be sad, we might as well jack in being christians and all go and work for the UN and other aid agencies. On the other hand a gospel that does not address that my personal sin and therefore our collective sin impacts on the world around us, that we are responsible for loving and caring for more than just me and mine, that love, justice, mercy, kindness, generosity and humility are all works of sanctification and should, i believe, see us becoming more caring not less so about this world the more God is at work through us.
Comment by jean

11.33 pm on 28 Dec 2007

Jesus spoke the truth – His goal was always to speak the truth. It didn’t take a list of ‘to do’s’ for Him to speak the truth, He wasn’t interested in converationalism or dialogue, but rather speaking directly and frankly to all He spoke with, many times pointing out to them the reason they could or would not believe. He spoke forthrightly about their sin also. That’s a far far cry from the elaborations of the emergent nonsense plaguing the church. There is a great deception going on, using a little truth and a lot of lie. Appearing as angels of light but are demons in disguise. They are deluded themselves because they have turned away from the power of the gospel! – substituting incorruptibe for corruptible and think they are doing a good thing.
No wonder the world flocks to hear their message -
they never know how glorious Christ is because they never know how awful their sin was that Christ paid the price for. Repent and give up your stiff necks born out of rebellion!
Comment by Paul

9.46 am on 29 Dec 2007

Orlando and jean i welcome your reminder to repent (literally re-think), but why stop at intellectual pride? after all i am a selfish, stubborn, greedy, me-loving, lustful and deceived most of the time into living my way how i want to live it. It is why i am eternally grateful for the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit.

I wonder though whilst we are in a repenting/rethinkin humble frame of mind you might wish to join me?

Turning up on someone’s blog and not taking time to find out who they are or where they are coming from and telling them what they need to do when you don’t know them does strike me as being as prideful an act as the one you demand repentence from.

Insisting that your understanding and interpretation of the bible is the only way it can and must be, ignoring 2000 years of church history and our own failability seems to me to be as equally stiff necked?

We all have blind spots, perhaps yours is telling rather than talking? So afraid of hereseys that you follow the prescription of turning up, telling me why I am wrong, demanding i repent and then disappearing, satisfied that you have done your duty. I understand that way of living, i was like that for many years as well but i have found rather than being right there is a better way, one which is less about using truth as an iron bar to tell people in love by battering them.

Now if i have a choice between following an uncertain path of humility and love, where i don’t know everything and wherelove means being for the other, or a clear path of least resistance by staying in my fears and predjudices i will take the uncertain way.

So please if you want to to talk lets talk, let’s ask questions about where each of us is coming from, let’s not be afraid that you will be right about somethings, i will be wrong about a lot of things and we’ll both be wrong about the rest?

In case you do want to talk, please let me ask you a question – which is simply if Jesus did speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (which i agree with you he did), why did he need to bother to speak in parables and why ask so many questions? Was it because he was filling in time until he could give the answer or was it because he was genuinely interested in the answers and wanted people to ask questions of him in return?
Comment by Orlando

5.48 pm on 29 Dec 2007

Paul, I already explained why Jesus spoke in parables. The reason is in Scripture, and again, is was not to be ‘cool’ and ‘engage’ people. Let’s read:

Matthew 13:10-11
(10) Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?”
(11) And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.

It was not given to them! It was not an artiluge to create excitement in his discourse! By use of imagination some have interpreted that Jesus wanted to create a dialogue. That’s not what the Scriptures portray. See Jeremiah 14:13-14 to see God’s anger against false prophets that attribute to God their vain imaginations and prophezise lies.

Fears and prejudices! What are you talking about? Prejudice against who? Against no one. Fears, only of the One that “can destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Mat 10:28). Paul, is it not honest to run a discussion using straw man tactics. Fears and prejudices! Which? In Christ there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all. (Col 3:11).

But being vague and deliberately obscure in doctrine (or rather, having no doctrine at all) is detrimental for anyone’s salvation. Is the Bible that is the Authority in all matters of Christian life and worship and all arguments must be based on Scripture. I see no Scripture in your comment here. Human wisdom is not able to discern spiritual things.

I don´t know everything neither, but the things that are written in Scripture must be paid attention to. But hey! the postmodern mindset wants us to believe that there is no truth… But truth has not changed: the Truth is Jesus (John 14:6). However for many is more comfortable to be ‘conversational’ and allow all heresies and blasphemies to go freely instead of taking the time, the pain and the effort of studying our Bibles, isn’t? Now with this postmodern emergent philosophical mesh Bibles are closed and we quote them when we need to support what we do, and not for learning the appropriate doctrine.

Church is about God not a social venue. Church is not about communities, is the fellowship of believers. The Emergent Movement puts a lot of stress into the social and the individual experience. We must deny ourselves (Mat 16:24). We do not live for this life, for our citizenship is in heaven (Phi 3:20).

We all have things to repent from, we all offend in many ways, but attacking proper doctrine -as the Emergent Movement is doing right now- poses a great danger: it may lead astray the sould of many. Individual sins of pride, etc, generally affect only the person that commits it; but twisting the Scriptures might send many souls to hell. Paul, is not about who’s right or not: I do not know you nor I am a famous guy to keep a track of my debates. Is about keeping the integrity of the Gospel and of our reason to have hope in Jesus. Then, you might see why your invitation to settle this in a ‘I’m right in this, you’re right on that, and we’ve wrong on the rest’ fashion is dishonest: the Gospel (and the souls of many) is at stake.

I would like to talk with fellow believers that uphold the proper doctrine and workout their salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12). But a sign of the emergent movement is to hear your own consciences and not to read the Word of God, and not to obey it. Please note I answered the ‘parables’ question twice.

Upholding proper doctrine does not diminish our obligation to love each other. But there is a love that God hates, the love of the world:

James 4:4 You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.

And that’s behind all this ecumenism movement: let’s forget about what God has said and let’s create a God of our own that fits all. In such a way, there’s no need to preach to the buddists or to muslims, or to jews. Peace on earth. But:

Mat 10:34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

The appropriate answer to the mistakes of others is not to take the extreme opposite road: is to go back to the Word of God.

The Emergent Movement is fulfilling prophecy, the Bible records:

2 Timothy 4:1-4
(1) I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom:
(2) preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.
(3) For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions,
(4) and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

Again, God is God of order, not God of confusion (1 Co 14:33). And lastly, to make it clear again that is not about my opinions:

Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
1. Comment by Paul
  
  1.18 am on 30 Dec 2007
  
  Thanks Orlando, I don’t know what you think but my reading of the passage is that Jesus goes on to explain the parables, in other words his disciples ask, they want to know and so Jesus tells them.
  
  I think that sometimes the parable does act as a sifting device, something that seperates those who are truly interested and therefore ask from those who want to be entertained, who hear a story and no more.
  
  But I am also think that sometimes the parable is the answer, to questions like who is my neighbour the story Jesus tells is far more shocking and powerful to his audience than saying whoever you come across who is in need – the hero of the parable afterall who shows this love would be the equivalent of maybe a muslim today. Or to describe the kingdom of God Jesus sets it into a story, the kingdom of god is like…
  
  There are also times when it is clear that Jesus is not speaking in parables either, the sermon on the mount or the woe to the pharisees passage or where Jesus responds to a question with a question.
  
  So yes i agree with you that Matt 10 gives us a good example of how Jesus uses parables to have conversations and reveal truth rather than just leave people baffled and confused – those who ask, seek etc are rewarded with insight as to the meaning of the story.
  
  I disagree with you that the postmodern mindset thinks there is no truth, i think the reality is that the modern mindset thinks that the postmodern mindset thinks there is no truth. I am sure there are many people who believe in their own sets of truths just as there have always been but all of the postmodern christians i have talked too passionately believe that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life – in fact so passionate is this belief that rather than bibles being closed i think that bibles are being opened and read, prayed about and lived out. As an evangelical i am often put to shame my the depth of biblical thought, prayer, action that the emerging church is undertaking.
  
  I wonder if God really does hate loving the world, or maybe it is the way that we understand loving the world – afterall John 3:16-16 seems to contradict this, God is shown as clearly loving the world and wishing to save it and all of us – a love that is maked by sacrifice, sending and incarnation – actually going and being with those you claim to love even if it costs, giving up his rights to become fully man and fully God. Maybe then the friendship of the world James is talking about is one that ignores God rather than seeks to serve God in loving the world like he does?
  
  You also seem to be making some assumptions that there is no doctrine within christiam conversation on the emerging church and that this is in some way an easy way to seek individual happiness. I can only speak for myself and the people i have spoken to where it is the opposite, people becoming more commited to Christ and more passionate about the bible, doctrine and the traditions of the church.
Comment by jean

9.46 pm on 29 Dec 2007

Paul, you should know that I don’t speak lightly about Emergents because I don’t know that of which they espouse. For 3 years now I have delved into the teaching and influence of this movement. From the onslaught something was ‘amiss’ as the Spirit of Christ that dwells in believers guides us to only hear our true Shepherd’s voice, not a hireling. I do not need to engage in dialogue or conversation to know what the Holy Spirit reveals. And yes, also, what the Holy Scriptures have revealed. There are foundational truths that cannot be ‘rethought’. When Emergents use the word ‘rethink’, they do not necessarily mean ‘repent’ – (not even usually). They literally mean ‘rethink’, as in rethinking that will change the intent, directive or Spirit of the Word of God. Remember McLaren’s suggestion to ‘rethink’ what the scriptures teach about homosexuality for instance by calling a moratorium for 6 months.

I grew up in the 50’s and 60’s when there was another ‘rethink’ going on – a cultural revolution that thought they would change the world. There truly is ‘nothing new under the sun’ – emergents are similar to what the hippie movement was in the 60’s, only in religious form….and think of this if you will – it was born out of rebellion just as much as I believe the emer movement is. The ‘anti-establishment’ is against the church in Emer movement whereas that movement of the 60’s was primarily against social and governmental dictates of the day. Emer movement is just clothed in a more subtle form of rebellion, with spiritual/religious overtones. That is why it’s so appealing in my estimate. It draws in that rebellious Adamic nature that lies within us until we are born again. Guess what happened to most of those that kicked their heels in the 60’s? They are living out their lives much the same way those they rebelled against – they discovered that all their rethinking only delayed adulthood. Rethinking in the things of God will only delay spiritual maturity at the least, if not much worse.

I believe if you would be honest and reread the Word of God without outside influence, you would not have come in agreeement with much of emer movement. I do not despise your youth, there are many young men and women who are wise beyond my years. I’m speaking that you have been deceived, my friend. You have been sucked into a philosophy that is vain, indeed. It is quite appealing to the flesh in nearly every venue it ‘emerges’ in.

Orlando had indeed already answered the question about why Jesus spoke in parables and I wondered why you chose to ignore that in your response to me.

You preferred to infer that I was ‘turning up on your blog’, (even though you say you want to engage in conversation) – so, it seemed you were at least slightly offended by my remarks, making me wonder what you would’ve said to the even harsher remarks that Jesus made in His day, such as, “your father is the devil”. That would likely not fit in the emergents idea of conversation, maybe they would want to excise those sort of comments out of the Holy Writ. I admittedly have nearly given up on ‘admonishing’ (yep, that’s what the Word says to do) Emergents because anytime I have they do not want to look at the scriptures (which would defy them), but rather give their opinions and thoughts and they are worthless and like empty cisterns. Will Christ save some nonetheless in Emer? Yes, not because they spoke with right motives or even complete truth – but because God is merciful and will save some ‘even if Christ be preached in pretense (or false motives)’. Phil. 1:15-18 You know, this is not what God desires, that Christ be preached this way, though. You would agree I believe. My point is that God will save some nonetheless.

There is a pride involved in not wanting to be proven wrong. You spoke truly in this. You sound like a reasonable man, I hope you reason these things out in truth and spirit, not ideology and philosophies of this world, no matter how they may appear, even as ‘angels of light’.
“Better the truth from a friend than a thousand kisses from an enemy”
1. Comment by Paul
  
  2.21 am on 30 Dec 2007
  
  Thanks Jean, i appreciate your delving.
  
  I wonder in your delving how many christians who would say that they are influenced by the emerging church conversation you have sat down with to have coffee or how many such churches you have regularly attended? It may be that you have done 3 years of hard research and the answer is hundreds and therefore you you are passing comment based on these conversations and experiences?
  
  I can only offer you my limited conversations and experienec to say that there have been some rethinking that has been wild and possibly unhelpful but there has also been a lot of good fruit as well, a lot of people re-engaged in their faith, in their love of Christ and in living of this out in their daily lives.
  
  Conversation is welcome but assuming that everyone in the emerging church is adopting heresy or abandoning the bible or turning their back on the Holy Spirit is truly unhelpful. I’d much rather you asked what I believe and why i believe it then assume that you know and proceed to lecture me. Yes please do point out my blind spots but let me tell you where they are first :)
  
  It’s a bit like you coming to my home and leaving wet towels all over the floor because you think that I love clearing them up, if you’re a considerate guest then you find out the house rules before you use up all the towels and leave them all over the place.
  
  Although i liked your hippie analogy (and you know i am sure that there is some crazy optimism around) I most liked your reminder of Jesus telling the pharisees that they were infact batting for the wrong side. What a shock that must have been to a group of people who were passionate about being as orthodox as they could, who knew every doctrine there was to know and were zealous for following and obeying the scriptures – they were whiter than white and told those who were less than perfect as such in the hope they would change their ways and follow their example. Maybe Jesus was being deliberately shocking because they were so close and yet so far, they had been innoculated just enought with their own sense of rightness to know that the messiah would never hang out with sinners, pagans, women and he would most certainly endorse them and reward them for being the one true faithful grp.
  
  It is a powerful reminder to me to not think that i am so far on the right side that i end up on the wrong side, opposing God because he can’t do it like that, becoming a barrier who decides who is in or out based on whether they look and sound like me and a police force of the spiritual status quo.
Comment by Jonathan Brink

10.57 pm on 29 Dec 2007

I find it interesting that people lump the emerging/emergent church into the coexist category. Very revealing.
Comment by jean

11.36 pm on 29 Dec 2007

I hope you’ll elaborate if you think I’m inerrant about it.
Comment by sonja

1.23 am on 30 Dec 2007

There are so many assumptions flying around here I can’t even see straight any more. Wow.
1. Comment by Paul
  
  2.30 am on 30 Dec 2007
  
  Thanks Sonja, good point. I’m sure i heard somewhere that all assume does is make an ass out of u and me :)
Comment by Bryan Riley

2.30 am on 30 Dec 2007

Sonja, good comment. Critics came in with a lot of assumptions, likely because of the picture.

I don’t know a lot, but here is what I do know. I was raised in a conservative denomination, not because of my parents but because I was introduced to God as my father at the age of 9 and I desired to follow Him by going to church. It happened that my first church was that conservative denomination. I read through the bible the first time at the age of 9-10 and the second time at the age of 10-11. I was taught “sound doctrine” as people in such churches call it. I “knew” a lot about the bible, memorized much of it, and was very “sound theologically.” I thought I would go to Dallas Theological Seminary one day.

Having said all that, I knew more when I knew God as my daddy than I ever did knowing a lot of facts about what theologians believe the bible says about God. Just like I could find out if Orlando really is named Orlando and find out his height, weight, church, spouse, favorite food, what he likes to do after he eats, etc. and etc., all of those facts still wouldn’t mean I know him.

This is true of God as well. And, to intensify that, God is mysterious and His ways are higher than my own. Apart from teh Holy Spirit breathing knowledge of Him into me, I can’t know Him at all. So, when people start going down the knowledge of facts and bible trail, I grow concerned because I know a lot of people (including myself), who know or knew a lot about God but didn’t live like they believed in or loved Him at all. They were more like Saul than Paul.

All of this is far from the original post, but it seemed appropriate in light of the conversation…
Comment by jean

5.49 am on 30 Dec 2007

Paul, it’s predictable that you would make the inference about pharisees (i.e. those
opposing emergent). Sadly, it only serves to tell me that I already know your mindset with comments like that. But then again.it’s what many emers resort to when they won’t engage in issues at hand, but would rather prefer to deflect away from them. No matter, let love prevail, right…. so, I’ll continue….. :)

You only have to go to the top of this blog to address the false teaching among
emergents. So, let’s try again to engage at issues at hand:

“Faith groups are a key part of the way we respond to the challenges we face from building strong resilient communities to tackling anti-social behaviour.”

Jesus (that’s Who we do follow, right) … now how would HE have ‘tackled anti-social behavior’ I think it has something major to do with HIM vs. faith groups, don’t you? or with HIM vs. ‘building strong resilient communities’. Well, you can configure and converse all you want, but you know in your heart, he would NOT have spoken such shame and futile. WHY? Because He was always about drawing people to GOD, to faith. WHY? SO THAT GOD GETS ALL THE GLORY! – it was and always has been about GOD receiving the glory, not men. In the above article, faith groups receive the glory, surely you see the subtlety? Which the emergent movement is fraught with – subtleties that lead people away from God receiving glory and all the imaginations and creativity of their own futile minds.

Does that mean that I think the church shouldn’t be engaged in helping and ministering outside of the church. nonsense, not at all. The Church has always traditionally been a leader in ministering to all sorts of needs. The church does this, it’s an outpouring of their faith. It’s done so that Jesus Christ ALONE receives the glory, not any other faith or ‘god’. It is God who draws and God who converts through the gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation. The gospel IS the good news that Jesus Christ died for our SINS, (the root of ‘anti-social’ behavior).

Did you note in reading the “Creating Community Through Interfaith Conversation and Interaction” that there was not ONE mention of Jesus Christ? Doesn’t that shock and grieve you? The LORD who SOME emers claim do not even MENTION HIS NAME? But of course, there’s the danger, isn’t it? ….. that might offend the other ‘faiths’ represented and so begins the slow descent of destruction caused by ecumenicalism ….
Ephesians 4:4-5:
“There is one body, and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling;
ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, one baptism, ONE GOD AND FATHER OF ALL, who is above all,
and through all, and in you all.”

And let we forget, there are MANY warnings against claiming any other name. If you defend this (yes) heretical teaching, you are giving glory to others than the true and living God in that one sentence alone, much less the rest of that futile, man-exalting nonsense.
Comment by Paul

10.51 am on 30 Dec 2007

Jean you initially made the reference to Jesus telling the pharisees that their father was the devil and ask me what I think about it as a way of conversation – i’ve not sure why you are so shocked?

I applied it only to me, they are a powerful warning, especially as an evangelical i have a lot in common with the passions of the pharisees. As a collective group their intentions were good but found out they had missed the point, they chose to make a stand for representing God and found that God didn’t need a team of bouncers on his side, that he wasn’t after piety alone but mercy and humility. I am certainly not applying it to those who oppose emergent or anyone else – i don’t know them to be able to do so. I do however know something of me and my nature.

Jesus in 1st century Palestine tackled the question of anti-social behaviour in his own way (then again the Romans were pretty good at killing anyone who was upsetting their social order).

A better question is I think how as followers of Christ should we be tackling anti-social behaviour and one response is to break down the hostility and help overcome the fear and misunderstanding that acts as a wall of seperation that keeps neighbours apart and neighbourhoods at war.

I agree with you, I think that as Christians we would have some wider thoughts as well that we can contribute – from ministries that help kids, marriagies, families, drug addicts, the poor, the homeless – we would say that the best way is follow Christ and experience his love, acceptance and transforming work, to exchange our kingdom for his.

So if the Government recognises that faith groups play an important role in place shaping and people impacting I think we should not throw our toys out of the pram that they are inviting everyone else to the table. If they chose to write about God in general that’s fine by me, a good opportunity for me to introduce them to my Lord. I think we should take the opportunity to respond and to engage. If we believe that we have a story worth telling and something to offere to the world well then lets tell that story and trust that the glory and honour will go to the Lord.

I have no intention of becoming some homgenous pick n mix multi faith following religion, I am a follower of Jesus but as such i am not afraid to try and be an instrument of peace, love, mercy in my communities
Comment by jean

3.21 am on 31 Dec 2007

Ephesians 4:4-5:
“There is one body, and one Spirit, even as you are called in ONE HOPE of your calling;
ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM, ONE GOD AND FATHER OF ALL, who is above all,
and through all, and in you all.”

I don’t know how else to say it so I think the verse is worth repeating. When Israel mingled with foreign gods, it was always to their sorrow. Spiritual adultery, which you seem to understand is dangerous by your last comment (homogenous mix n pick), is something God hates because HE will not share His glory with another. You may think that you can experience ‘interfaith’ and keep it separate from your own faith, but in God’s eyes, I think it is likely polluted faith. The veil of separation has ALREADY occurred, but it wasn’t a separation of different faiths – it was a separation that kept us from God.

Jesus did minister to others of different faiths, as we of course should! if we believe we are of the ONE TRUE FAITH. He did not join up with any of them, though, to be about His Father’s business. He did not take part in any collaborative effort with other religions in order to share the truth with them. Besides, believers are already ministering outside of their faith in every way and should continue. Again, God will do the CALLING and the DRAWING – WHEN those whose feet are shod with the gospel proclaim Him. Do you think this gospel is welcome in your ecumenical movement? If so, I challenge you to be so bold to declare Christ openly and publicly with them outside of being part of their effort. You will soon find how very much your Christ is not wanted, my friend. If you want to engage then do as Paul did: 1 Corinthians 2:4-5 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a DEMONSTRATION of the SPIRIT’S POWER, [5] so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power.
Hallelujah! Now there’s an endeavor to sink your spiritual teeth into, Paul.

And just like I mentioned in the prior email, you can see that with all the interfaithing going on, where IS the LORD that you so want to introduce them to? If He’s the true goal of the interfaithing as far as you are concerned, why isn’t He given mention? You’ve already compromised by witholding glorifying the true God. Jesus never did that, He ALWAYS gave God the glory. Because, again, that is the will of the Father, to be glorified.

I think you will spin your spiritual wheels and gain very little, if anything. Let me know if and how you share the Lord with them, would you?
Unless it’s God driven, most efforts to unite for a cause usually end up ultimately a fiasco (Babel…? – remember it was all about uniting humanity, too) but God was not in what the PEOPLE wanted to accomplish.

I’m sorry to be such a downer as you may be disposed to think. I dont’ claim to be a prophet, but yes, a watchman on the wall…. they’re not liked too much in their own hometown either :)

You know that even in Revelations, we are warned against idols. Idols are anything that detracts from God’s glory that we look to. Usually they were other gods…..
Comment by Paul

11.03 am on 1 Jan 2008

Thanks Jean, I appreciate the ongoing conversation and I feel like we are getting down to your specific concerns.

I am not sure what you mean by “interfaith?” I’d be grateful if you could explain what you are thinking when you use that phrase? You refer to Isreal mingling, but i thought that was more of adopting the religious beliefs and practices? Is that your concern here that you are concerned that even thinking about talking and working with others from other religions might lead to the abandoment of our faith for theirs?

You refer to Jesus ministering to other faiths and say that he didn’t join up with any faiths (well apart from being Jewish) and that makes me wonder again whether you think that I have been advocating some form of joined up religion, so for example i can only converse with an atheist if somehow i believe in God and no God all at the same time, or flit between the two?

If so this is not an approach I am advocating and I agree with you, what I am saying is that we need to engage and indeed I think we have a mandate as christians to be salt and light in our communities, we are called to be peacemakers, to go the extra mile, to follow the incarnational principles of Jesus or Paul in 1 Cor 9:19-23 to be caring for our communities.

What would you say is the ultimate demonstration of the Spirit’s power? For me it is the story of lives transformed, of people moving from dark to light, from seeking their own blessing to being blessings, God’s blessing in their community. The power of Christ is this transforming, redeeming, sanctifying effect. The glory of God is seeing lives transformed, and being transformed – the on going work of the Spirit in us so that we continue to love more instead of hate, serving others instead of self-serving, peace making instead of stirring, kindness instead of the ugliness of trampling over others in order to get ahead etc.

I think that we both agree that we should be ministering in our communities and therefore to people of different beliefs – that this something that rises up out of our faith and our belief in Jesus and the impact he has had already in our own lives. Why would we want to keep that to ourselves?

I may be wrong but you seem concerned that Jesus is not being mentioned, i am not sure what you are referring too? The document in question that I refer to in this post is a goverment consultation and therefore I have no control of the wording that they use. In writing the post I was addressing one of the primary audiences of this blog, christians and was making an assumption that I didn’t need to set out here the reasons why i think that following Jesus should be more than just getting to heaven but actually trying about being able to access the power and presence of God in caring for and serving the communities around us.

For me the glory of Christ is not something that I think he looked for whilst he was on the earth, or not a glory that the world recognises easily – the glory of a servant, who served and suffered. So I wonder if the Father continues to be glorified when we engage with the world around us and speak and act in ways that try to show what God is really like – altho all our attempts are always going to be flawed given that we are works in progress ourselves.

I am grateful for you asking the question as to how people are engaging in their communities, that was one of the things I was interested in, how people were experiencing this in their everyday lives.

I am also grateful for our continued conversation and for your generousity in your response.

Happy new year to you :)
Comment by jean

12.07 pm on 2 Jan 2008

Paul, it may be helpful if I lead you to the already existing comments made by the interfaith groups themselves, of which you can easily link onto in the above document. Take careful consideration of the

One such is:

“Followers of different faiths are able to coexist with mutual respect and understanding. They have much to offer, drawing on their own particular spiritual heritages, to help create a society rooted in values which are held in common between the distinct historic faiths.”

….values which are held in common between the distinct historic faiths…. think of this Paul -
what values has Belial with Christ? the true definiton of fellowship means joint particpation towards a common goal. There IS and never SHALL BE a common GOAL or VALUE between the two. You do believe this, don’t you? So, this cleverly crafted deception that appears to do good, this global cause of coming together for the sake of the good of humanity, is a lie from hell, frankly. Which I assume you are aware of an enemy named satan, the father of lies, whose abode is hell, right? That would be an answer I would like for you to reply to. There can never be a great global goodness for humanity outside of Christ.

“Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, ‘I will dwell in them and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,’ says the Lord. ‘And do not touch what is unclean; And I will welcome you. And I will be a Father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to Me,’ Says the Lord Almighty.” (2 Corinthians 6:14-18).

I’m sure you think that by participating in these endeavors that you are NOT compromising your faith – that you ARE remaining separate. But if their goals are to respect one another’s faiths and to keep the distinctives and your goal is to share Christ with them……. the most IMPORTANT goal for you as a Christian isn’t the same at all.

The whole concoction of Emergents to usher in global peace in this VERY homogenized way is anything but Christ glorifying because again, God will NOT share His glory with another. It’s putting the cart before the horse, so it’s been said. Without Christ preached first (that’s what Paul’s goal in the Word was!), it’s all folly and much much worse.

Also, please consider this, Paul himself was one who labored in good works but NEVER left hold of Christ first:
2 Cor 11:3 – 15 “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles. But though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but we have been throughly made manifest among you in all things Have I committed an offence in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely? I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service. And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied: and in all things I have kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep myself. As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this boasting in the regions of Achaia.
Wherefore? because I love you not? God knoweth. But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we. For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Again, I’m also assuming that you still hold to the inerrancy and infallability of the scriptures so that these words above would surely have some signifance in what we are wrestling with. If you do not hold to such, then my friend, you may have already started departure from the faith. I write in fear for you, that you have postmoderned yourself right into agreement with part of the great deception that IS presently upon the earth.

The emergent church is nothing new. it’s the same old timeless deception that’s been going on since the beginning – a twist here and a turn there, all cloaked in lofty sounding spiritualistic mumbo jumbo and how the world eats it up and flocks to it. from satan to Alice Bailey to Brian McLaren and all the others between, then and presently….NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN.

God will always have a remnant whom He raises that will hold fast. They are rising right now. They will be the standard that the HOlY LORD raises against this generation and this pompous reimaging, reinventing, redefining, recreating…. shall I go on ??? (everything but what the Lord says…. rePENTING.

Let me recommend a book that is circulating in America to expose the falsity of the emergent movement. There are several, but this brother
defines in concise and biblical understanding what the real force behind emergent is and how it’s being unfolded: FAITH UNDONE by ROGER OAKLAND

I’m sure my tone does not coincide with your version of how to speak Truth, but then again, neither did Jesus’ turning of the tables….
If only there were more moments of such gravity…
I can only say earnestly that outside of a holy zeal for the Lord of Hosts, I have only a desire to use this time wisely in fear and trembling before the true and living God. Can I give you the charge that was given to Timothy by Paul:

I charge you therefore before God, and the LORD Jesus Christ, who shal judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; PREACH the word, be instant in season, out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.”

How ARE many emergents themselves experiencing their efforts thus far? – You know some of this….they themselves are getting tired of all the conversation (thankfully) Oh, the empty time and words spent on and on and on! Poor souls, it’s wearisome for certain to be led around by the nose in countless deceptive conversations and never get to the truth and heart of the good news. that is great deception indeed. Not only that, the emergents ALSO now want to return to SOME of the traditions and NOW see value in what they have thumbed their noses against. They are looking to liturgies, sacraments, on and on. WHY? Because all that conversation is fruitless, men talking, men planning. BUT even these returns to the recent past of church tradition or the ancient future – it’s all vanity of vanities! more of the same, desperate attempts to come to God or to do His will – but they are outward appearances of religion while they privately sneer accuse others of doing the same. unjust judges. they’re making candidates twice as fit for hell as the Word says. It’s way past time to put on the full armour and put away this foolishness.
Comment by Paul

3.00 pm on 2 Jan 2008

Thanks Jean, I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree over how false the emergent conversation is – it is i am sure no better or worse than any other grouping of christians in history :) – you think its a bad thing – i think its mostly a good thing with some flaws.

I also appreciate your concern but again i think we are coming at this from 2 different places, i am not advocating combining faiths which all those passages you quote refer to, i am merely suggesting as a christian we have something positive to contribute to our communities – we’ve tried crusades, conquests, confrontations in the past maybe we should try conversation and compassion?
1. Comment by Helen
  
  6.37 pm on 2 Jan 2008
  
  Paul wrote: we’ve tried crusades, conquests, confrontations in the past maybe we should try conversation and compassion?
  
  Now there’s an interesting idea…
  
  :)
Comment by bryan riley

3.17 pm on 2 Jan 2008

Yes, Jean, it is true that we must not be in partnership with or bound with the enemy. You are correct to cite those scriptures. But what do they mean in the context of Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 9?

19Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

24Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize.

25Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. 26Therefore I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air. 27No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.

How does someone tell another about Jesus without being in a position where the other will listen? I understand that the Holy Spirit can break down all barriers, but can God not use us in various ways as we relate to others?
Comment by jean

8.17 pm on 2 Jan 2008

Bryan,
that’s a verse that gets overused in the emergent circles, but one worth digging into exactly because it gets perverted. Let me lead you to a brother you might be familiar with at this site below – he does a much better job of elaborating on that topic than I!

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/1996/945_Becoming_All_Things_to_All_Men_to_Save_Some/

Read through to the end, where I fear it may (hopefully not ) cause offense. As to your question about how one tells another about Jesus without being in a position where the other will listen. Remember Jesus’ (the LORD whose example
we follow) response to Nicodemus? Remember, it is God’s beginning the work of new birth in one’s heart, EVEN preparing of the heart to receive.
No one WILL listen until that happens. Until the wind ‘blows’ where it will, we are dead in our sins and do not seek God. that’s where so many have assumed too much and are trying so desperately to facilitate God.

Paul, now you are saying more open what I knew and we can cut the chase – your allegiances lie with emergent and obviously mine do not. You might be surprised that I agree that christians in the past have created offenses grossly, but two wrongs never make a right now, do they? I even believe that a lot of the nonsense and foolishness from the fundamental evangelical church of this past century has actually aided the ENEMY, satan, (who is the REAL cause for this confusion) to the present atrocities of the emergent movement and seeker friendly genres. YET, the emergent movement has surpassed all imaginations in their belief and at least a great deal of emergents have left the sound teaching of the scriptures, literally
perverting the basic doctrines of the faith.
(yes,I know doctrine is a ‘nasty’ little word within emergents, but that’s one’s own issue – if you are of that mind, you’ll have to excise much of the new testament, all that talk of doctrine will likely offend you.

Remember, in the end, it’s not the church that is the cause for non-belief, though, it is SIN. It’s another twist from emergents to make the church, not the prinicipalities and power of the air…
the real enemy. The real enemy is hardly mentioned in hard core emergent circles! (dig into that one) Can any one organization or person be a stumbling block? ABSOLUTELY! and woe to them that are….
1. Comment by Paul
  
  10.49 pm on 2 Jan 2008
  
  Jean, my allegiances lie i would say where’s your lie, in believing in Jesus and trying to follow him.
  
  Church and doctrine are not our enimies, christians are not our enimies, even other religions are not are enimies, i hope we can agree on that?
2. Comment by Paul
  
  10.51 pm on 2 Jan 2008
  
  Jean, my allegiances like yours lie with believing in Jesus and trying to follow him.
  
  Church is not our enemy, doctrine are not our enemy, christians are not our enemy, even other faiths are not our enemy.
Comment by jean

11.20 pm on 2 Jan 2008

who would you say our enemy is?
Comment by Bryan Riley

11.20 pm on 2 Jan 2008

Jean, I too would say that following Jesus as Lord is my only goal. and, I hope you would agree that men and faith are not our enemies; satan and his demons are. It is a spiritual war we are fighting, not against flesh and blood. So, I still am uncertain what it is you are grappling with here.

BTW, Piper’s Desiring God was the book that woke me up to much of the mess I was in, a mess created by knowing a lot of doctrine but not loving and desiring God.
Comment by Bryan Riley

11.23 pm on 2 Jan 2008

Jean and others who have commented here critically: Thank you for doing so, because iron does sharpen iron and no one writing here (I hope) claims to have a monopoly on righteous truth. but remember that you may be prejudicially lumping things together without knowing the people you are attacking.
Comment by jean

12.40 am on 3 Jan 2008

Bryan, Bro. Piper will continue to help you. He’s as strong a doctrinalist! as he is a lover of God!
Please continue to let him speak truth to you.

In regards to ‘attacking’. Supposedly we were having a conversation on this site. If my understanding is that emergent is false teaching, then I have a calling, indeed an obligation, to declare it so. Unfortunately, words like attacking stifle any ongoing debate. As far as knowing the people…. I know them from what they themselves have spoken in public and in books. Their words find them guilty or innocent. Paul and others spoke against false teaching, whether they knew the person or not. Again, we can stick with what the Word of God says at LEAST, can’t we? It should be a huge portion of believers’ common ground. I do appreciate your attitude otherwise. Don’t accuse or perceive solid arguements or debates as prejudicial, critical, self righteousness or attacks. If the facts bear them out, they are what they are, right?
This is difficult for most emergents because they have recreated their veiw of much of scripture and much of it is unknowing….
1. Comment by Paul
  
  8.50 am on 3 Jan 2008
  
  Hi Jean, it would be great to here some questions from you – since we’re having a conversation? I don’t think that we’ve actually come across any false teaching here have we?
  
  Making assumptive statements like “this is difficult for most emergents because they have recreated their veiw of much of scripture” is just not conducive to having a conversation. Neither you nor I know most emergents to make that statement, i know some as may you. You may feel like most emergents have recreated their view of scripture so why not phrase it is a question or a feeling? What do you mean by recreating it sounds a loaded phrase which can mean rediscovery and reaplication at one end of the spectrum to making it up as they go along at the other.
  
  I’m not sure talking about some grp that we can’t define and have to refer to as “they” is helpful at all really, it’s too easy to point to some strawman who doesn’t actually exist. Why not ask people in this conversation questions about what they believe if you are interestd in finding out for yourself?
2. Comment by Helen
  
  3.25 pm on 3 Jan 2008
  
  Jean wrote: If my understanding is that emergent is false teaching, then I have a calling, indeed an obligation, to declare it so.
  
  Jean, are you female? (Your name sounds female) If so doesn’t the Bible say you aren’t supposed to teach or usurp authority over men? It seems to me that in seeking to correct Paul – a man – you’re trying to teach him.
  1. Comment by Paul
    
    8.41 am on 4 Jan 2008
    
    thanks Helen, but i do not mind learning from anyone, male or female…
    1. Comment by Helen
      
      11.49 am on 4 Jan 2008
      
      Paul, I know and I appreciate that.
      
      I’d still like to understand how Jean justifies her role here, given what the Bible says about women teaching men.
Comment by jean

11.33 am on 3 Jan 2008

Sorry Paul, I haven’t quite perfected the art of conversation evidently, eh? Or maybe dialectics would be more likely…. Thought we were having
just a regular old conversation! I believe the srawman lies in diverting attention now to HOW I have conversation rather than fleshing out certain issues, whether they be in question or statement form…..OR maybe the diversion lies in asking endless questions to just get someone’s opinion rather than coming to the ‘knowledge of the truth.’ but, since you insist, please return to some of my prior emails and I believe you could start by answering some questions I’ve previously asked and wondered why you hadn’t responded…. I’m sure it was just an oversight…

Now then maybe we can return to dialoguing once again.

Bryan, here’s a great message from Piper that sums up a lot of what we’ve been discussing in this blog. Piper is a handler of the Word of God who won’t leave you dangling with a cloud of knowing, but who rightly divides the Word, as directed.

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2001/63_The_Greatest_Thing_in_the_World_An_Overview_of_Romans_17/

Paul, do you believe the bible to be the inherent and infallible Word of God?
1. Comment by Paul
  
  8.58 am on 4 Jan 2008
  
  It’s a good question, thanks Jean.
  
  Foremost I would say that I belive in Jesus as the inherent and infalliable Logos (word) of God, what I believe about the bible comes secondary to this one overall and overarching belief. I believe in Jesus, i believe he is the revelation of the Father who lived inspired by the Holy Spirit and i also believe he is the revelation of humanity that God wants us to be – that by believing in him we changed now and for forever, that we can enter the kingdom of God and exchange our petty nature to self centred self determination (call it sin if you like) for a life lived in Christ. That Jesus is our liberating King, that it is in the mystery of the cross that Jesus enables us to be liberared from ourselves to be able to live for the other – and that liberation process, call it grace, call it santification, call it the work of the Spirit continues within us, so that we continue to understand and practice deeper that love is about giving not getting – not least in the practice of learning to give up our rights and serving others.
  
  My belief in this Jesus is inspired and informed by what I read in the bible and what christians across the centuries have helped reveal to us -for example we must be grateful for the 500 yrs of the early church who wrestled with the question of Christ’s humanity and settled for us the belief that Jesus was fully God and fully man that these two natures are inseparable, indivisible, unconfused and unchangeable.
  
  Now in terms of your question on the bible, i took the liberty of looking up your terms you used:
  
  inherent: defination of “Permanently existing in something; inseparably attached or connected; naturally pertaining to; innate; inalienable”
  
  Yes i agree that the word of God exists in the bible, the stories of God’s interactions with the worls, told by a cast of hundreds… in part that is the inspiration of the Spirit as well as the historian and linguist in helping us the reader to connect with the stories and context of the time of the writers to help us understand their world, rather than only reading it through the lens of ours.
  
  infallible: from wiki: “Biblical infallibility is the theological term to describe the belief that the Bible is free from errors on issues of faith and practice.”
  
  Yes, i agree with that, taking the bible as a whole i think it us error free in setting out faith and practice. I am not so sure that we as christians are free from error in our orthodoxy and orthopraxy, we have often kept faith and practice apart – so we live one at the expense of the other, we strive for doctrinal purity say but do so at the expense of being loving.
  
  It’s one of the things I appreciate most about the emerging conversation, the bring together of orthodoxy and orthopraxy – making it a living generous faith.
Comment by jean

10.51 pm on 3 Jan 2008

If you’ll allow me one more link to Piper, I believe it’s helpful to understanding how holding to the good and holy biblical doctrine goes to savoring Christ:)

http://www.recoverthegospel.com/?p=810
Comment by Helen

11.50 am on 4 Jan 2008

Jean, did you see my comment to you, inside the box of your #27 comment?
Comment by jean

2.24 pm on 4 Jan 2008

helen, I can smell the stench of hostility vs. someone wanting to express their thoughts and beliefs, but your comment was beneficial for it led me to your blog which was quite revealing. And whether I’m female or male, since you yourself do the same thing you accuse me of …. I lingered onto whether to pont that out to you or not, but since you’re pursuing the matter, I’ll go after one more strawman….

After reading just a little of your blog, I felt a
heave of sympathy for you, it seems you’re feeling the weight of a soul whose life is invested in following the latest ‘how to do’ Christianity. That happens inside evanglicalism of mainstream Christianity AND the ‘otherlyness’ of those ‘outside the box’, although
as I’ve said in my prior email, it’s paramount in emergents and on top of that, the emergent movement
has so strayed from and convoluted the truth that I believe there will be many like you not far down the road, whose faith just doesn’t seem to be there anymore. Rather than seeing that the heart and soul of the glory of God has been excised from the emergent social gospel, you prefer to cast the fault generically to ‘christianity’. What you’re feeling is a heavy load to bear, maybe you don’t really understand why because you think it has
something to do with christianity. I’d recommend that you listen to all the links I provided to be refreshed in hearing in true Hope in the Lord who Hears. His sheep hear His voice and will not follow another. Piper is not a hireling, he will lead you to the true Shepherd. The last link I suggested might be beneficial.

Your blog was very helpful to me in another way – by your own words, you revealed the truth of what I have been saying is the danger of emergent. Your comments on McLaren’s book, Everything Must Change, is filled with unmasking the misdirections and deceptions of emergent thought, but I’ll focus in on one for starters. (for clarifying purposes, I’ve put your quotes “”" below)

“”"Later in the book Brian says some things about faith and belief which strike me as very radical. Essentially, he defines faith as believing [Jesus’ words that] we can make the world a better place if we respond to the call to action. He calls this the faith that will save us – in a global sense. He talks about transferring trust from the way of Caesar to the way of Jesus. He uses quintessentially conservative evangelical language in a radically different way. Is he replacing conservative evangelical definitions or simply paralleling them from a global perspective? He doesn’t really say. If he’s replacing them I expect Christians at the conservative end of the spectrum are going to have a huge problem with that.
When I got to the end I found myself thinking something I’m not sure Brian intended (but perhaps he did): this story can be told without Jesus or even God having a central role. It’s simply a story about how if we can believe we can make a difference, we (very likely) can make our world a better place. Lots of people have found a way to believe it’s worth trying who don’t believe in Jesus. I don’t have a problem with people seeing the call to action Brian describes as Jesus’ call to action. I think Brian gives reasonable evidence of that (assuming the Bible is a reliable record of Jesus life and words). But ultimately I think Jesus doesn’t need to be part of this story.
I don’t have a problem with the idea that God could have written a story in which he doesn’t have to be the main character and get all the attention. (In fact, to me, that seems very consistent with Jesus saying he came to serve, not to be served). However, I think a lot of Christians will be rather outraged (i.e. righteously indignant) if they notice this ramification of Brian’s version of the “good news” of Jesus. (Because everything is supposed to be about God’s glory). And in their outrage they will miss the enormous benefit of this story being one that can be told without God, which is: it’s inclusive; it’s one that makes sense to all socially aware people; it’s one that simply says “if you see the problem, let’s work together and do our best to fix it.”. It places no belief litmus test barriers in the way of those who care.
Brian is a follower of Jesus so there’s no need or reason for him to take Jesus out of his own framing story. Here’s a description of Jesus Brian gives in the book which I really like:
He simply let the people know he liked them – and so did God, that he was interested in them, that they didn’t have to be ashamed of who they were. He came close to them in their illnesses, wept with them at the graves of their loved ones, ate at their tables, drank their wine, listened to their words, let himself be injured by their pain—and, although it isn’t recorded in any of the Gospels (canonical or otherwise), I imagine he laughed at some of their jokes too.
In summary, I’m very glad Brian wrote this book. I think it’s an important contribution to the conversation about what following Jesus could and should look like. More importantly, I think it’s likely that many people will take his call to action seriously and that will result in some increase in what people are doing to make the world a better place. Which would be wonderful.”"”

You yourself acknowledge several things that should cause someone who hasn’t been drugged into the dullness of emergence to be alarmed about: in your words:

“‘Is he replacing conservative evangelical definitions or simply paralleling them from a global perspective? He doesn’t really say”‘ — You are correct, Helen, McLaren doesn’t really SAY what he means (trademade of emergents – the truth is always questioned and one is left really never knowing answers, except the (false) directive that we were put on earth to ‘make it a better place’) – who told McLaren that? Jesus never said that. He said HE, HIMSELF, came to a lost and dying world to save sinners and give life and glorify His Father. Mclaren swims around in that cloud of unknowing again and drags you with him. I addressed this is my earlier postings.

Again, your quote:

“”"When I got to the end I found myself thinking something I’m not sure Brian intended (but perhaps he did): this story can be told without Jesus or even God having a central role. It’s simply a story about how if we can believe we can make a difference, we (very likely) can make our world a better place. Lots of people have found a way to believe it’s worth trying who don’t believe in Jesus. “”"

Again, you acknowledge you’re not sure what Brian’s intentions are. AND you also confirmed my understandingal postings that in the emergent verbage —- Jesus or even God, are oftentimes not even IN the conversation of their lofty saving the world endeavors. Trademark in emergent movement of at least some of the major rethinkers, reimaginers, reinventers in the emergent movement. Your intention was not to find fault with emergent, but you did exactly that inadvertently.

Again, your quote:

“”"I don’t have a problem with the idea that God could have written a story in which he doesn’t have to be the main character and get all the attention. (In fact, to me, that seems very consistent with Jesus saying he came to serve, not to be served). However, I think a lot of Christians will be rather outraged (i.e. righteously indignant) if they notice this ramification of Brian’s version of the “good news” of Jesus. (Because everything is supposed to be about God’s glory). And in their outrage they will miss the enormous benefit of this story being one that can be told without God, which is: it’s inclusive; it’s one that makes sense to all socially aware people; it’s one that simply says “if you see the problem, let’s work together and do our best to fix it.”. It places no belief litmus test barriers in the way of those who care.”"”

Helen, either you are not a true follower of Christ or you have heard ‘another gospel’. If you seriously think that God doesn’t need to be the main character and get all the attention, then you missed the entire focus of Christ Himself! Despite your disdain, He was EXACTLY all about His Father’s business ! Have you read the scriptures at all? I’m sorry to sound so emphatic, but you’re already seriously questioning your own spiritual condition, so it’s best to be forthright with you. If you are angered at what I say, that’s understandable – the truth of the gospel angered a lot of folks in Christ’s day also. I hear the words of Christ at this moment for you – “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling” This Christ who you feel doesn’t really need to be mentioned, the Name above all Names….and that’s OKAY with you? ! As far as McLaren, he reflects by his own words (and lack of) who his father is.

Again, in your words:

“Brian is a follower of Jesus so there’s no need or reason for him to take Jesus out of his own framing story”

Well, there would be no need for Brian to take Jesus out of his own framing story IF he were a follower of Jesus, Helen. Who is his father?
Honestly, if you can’t , just by these few paragraphs that I’ve cut from your own blog, in your own words, see the inconsistencies and vagueness of emergent ‘leader’ McLaren , then you are in danger of losing your faith altogether and what a loss that would be!

“For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because of your name as followers of Christ, truly I say to you, he shall not lose his reward. And whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea. And if your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched. And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame, than having your two feet, to be cast into hell, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched. And if your eye causes you to stumble, cast it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into hell, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched. For everyone will be salted with fire. Salt is good; but if the salt becomes unsalty, with what will you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another.” (Mark 9:41-50)

Drink, Helen, at the waters of Life, the fount that will not leave you in the condition that you are in now. Cut off and out anything that is leading you away from Christ. His Worth is uncomparable! I count it all joy lead you to the Truth.
Comment by jean

6.05 pm on 4 Jan 2008

“Unless the Lord builds the house, the house is built in vain.”

I think you would say you believe that, Paul.
The house of the emergents has not been built on the Lord, but on the pragmatic relativism of a social gospel in which Jesus Christ is NOT central (see my last posting in regards comment by Helen).
so whatever orthodoxy and orthopraxy is administered is IN VAIN. Actually, the movement is leading people BACK in captivity of deeds (emphasis being deeds not creeds)
BACK to the LAW, to WORKS!

As you and I have already established, deeds are an OUTPOURING of our life in Christ, they are
not the GOAL = He is our goal. If one does not even have to believe in Christ as their goal and they do many good deeds,
the Living Word says this: “And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor,
and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.”

What is Love. God is Love. Christ in God is Love. If God, if Christ are not the absolute and complete foundation of our faith, the ultimate centralness, then the purpose gets polluted and all the deeds we do to save the world or help mankind profits nothing, according
to the Lord Himself. It has been good to labor in the Lord in these matters. It’s also now come to the place for me that enough has been written that if ‘wisdom is known by her children’ it shall be. My heart is heavy that so many are being led astray and the Lord is being given second place by the imaginations and reimaginations of men.

Helen, please consider that the Lord might have drawn you into all of this with His cords of Love in mercy to deliver you.
1. Comment by Paul
  
  7.30 pm on 4 Jan 2008
  
  Jean, you and I disagree again, I would say that Jesus is central to my beliefs and my life, although i can’t speak for every christian, everywhere, emergent or not.
Comment by Helen

2.33 pm on 5 Jan 2008

Thanks for your response, Jean.

It was not my intention to be hostile. I just don’t understand how a woman who takes the Bible literally in the way you do can seek to ‘correct’ men online and isn’t troubled by the passages about women not teaching men. If you’re male then it’s not an issue.
Comment by missionseeker

12.36 am on 6 Jan 2008

Greetings& Prayers, Paul, my response: I am convinced that Jesus sent the comforter, to comfort us,is His words,not bread alone, but what proceeds out of the mouth of God, the Bible. “Community is” vital. Have you ever noticed how it is that sometimes you only have one chance to mention Jesus to certain people, if you do share Christ, you feel great, if you don’t you feel guilty? I do. When Christ became community present, He was clear on His timing, His intent, and His purpose. He came thru any town, and looked for first things first, the lost sheep. He encountered situations. He took with Him several men. Men, who were leaders, but were of course learners also. Listening to His every word. The Lord transformed, He rebuked, He did good unto all. He commands us now to do good unto all men, especially to the household of faith. Hopefully, we are all growing in Him if we grow in faith, grace, knowledge, fruits of spirit, and love. His word power is to know Him and obey the gospel. To me the most ultimate demonstration of the Spirit: in past terms was Jesus on the cross, in present terms I believe it is man joining Him in baptism to take part in said reenactment of His death, knowing His word and how it was delivered and the bible gets it right; ultimate Spirit teaching, call, answer, choice. The gospel is the POWER of salvation to the Jew first and also to the Greek. The good news of the grace bearing God, loving us that much, and gifting us with salvation upon our obedient heart, united in the answer of our conscience. Creating Community: Have you ever seen a community without a strong Christian influence? I have. Communities must have Jesus as the influence and provider. The community should strive for health and safety and good behaviors. How great it would be that men of faith would reflect His image. Advertising can be good, if it is Godly and truthful and guided by the attention to good sound upstanding doctrines/ leaders/ men so as to do good works and thereby have the gospel ready to give an answer to any man that asks. Men are upstanding in my church assembly here in the Lord’s church local as long as they respect and care for God’s word to be preached and the men, women, children of their flock are cared for. And, community residents can call upon the church members for assistance, needs of clothes, food, counseling, weddings, funerals, Godly good works. Bold men that pastor, chosen by the flock have guidelines set up in God’s word. Jesus knew rendering to Caesar and to God would be important so we must prioritize. What are the barriers of success? We must love one another, if we don’t it causes barriers. They will “know” we are Christians by our LOVE. He does say to examine ourselves, whether we are “in the Lord”. We must put Him first, love, and have Christ in us to be in HOPE of heavens glory. “The goal we all should have in common as believers, is that of wanting to go to heaven.” My elders admonish everyone in the church to read Roms 12 and of course obey the Lord’s commands. How much scripture do you use in your assembly? We want to be with Him someday, therefore purity of doctrine is a must, around the community, at assemblies and indeed all around the world. Love of the world (worldliness of sinning) if it is in the heart then God gets pushed out and the Love of God is not in us. Sin weighs us down, the bible in the mind, does the renewal. The mind has incredible ways of balancing, with God, all things good become possible, because God is good, measured by love, God is love. The token of the true Christian is that we cannot be moved away from our Lord, because true brethren will love us and love of God and family will help keep us from sin. James 5:19,20. We are vexed by the conversation of this world because of sin. Christ can remove this sin from between us and God, without the help of Jesus C. we have not the promises of God. I leave you with this verse… 2 Cor 5:11.
1. Comment by Paul
  
  10.57 am on 7 Jan 2008
  
  thanks mission seeker
Comment by doug rogers

5.01 am on 15 Jan 2008

The symbols are incorrect. The black and white swirl with dots is a symbol of Taosim, not Buddhism.
Comment by Paul

7.48 pm on 15 Jan 2008

Thanks Doug :)
Comment by Christa

6.55 pm on 22 Aug 2008

I have to agree with Doug. The symbol relating to Wicca is incorrect, what is there is simply a Celtic design, not a religious one. Also, the two symbols relating to Paganism could be split up into Wiccan (the upright pentacle) and the Hellenic religion of the ancient Greeks (the Ankh).

I must say, I enjoy reading this blog. It is refreshing to me to hear religious people having (for the most part ;p) civil conversations about such a personal and intense topic. The use of the Scripture impresses me and I have found a new respect for religious conversations/debates regarding Christianity.

Comments are now closed.

Jason Clark

Creating community through interfaith conversation and interaction?

53 comments

Comment by Bryan Riley

Comment by Paul

Comment by Jorge

Comment by Paul

Comment by Eskil

Comment by Orlando

Comment by Paul

Comment by Orlando

Comment by Orlando

Comment by Paul

Comment by jean

Comment by Paul

Comment by Orlando

Comment by Paul

Comment by jean

Comment by Paul

Comment by Jonathan Brink

Comment by jean

Comment by sonja

Comment by Paul

Comment by Bryan Riley

Comment by jean

Comment by Paul

Comment by jean

Comment by Paul

Comment by jean

Comment by Paul

Comment by Helen

Comment by bryan riley

Comment by jean

Comment by Paul

Comment by Paul

Comment by jean

Comment by Bryan Riley

Comment by Bryan Riley

Comment by jean

Comment by Paul

Comment by Helen

Comment by Paul

Comment by Helen

Comment by jean

Comment by Paul

Comment by jean

Comment by Helen

Comment by jean

Comment by jean

Comment by Paul

Comment by Helen

Comment by missionseeker

Comment by Paul

Comment by doug rogers

Comment by Paul

Comment by Christa

Related Entries