Slice/CRN Discussion: Cultural Relevance
Issue: Should the modern church be ‘relevant’ to the culture in which it exists?
CRN/Slice Take: A number of articles in the past have run the gamut from ‘poo-poo-ing’ the idea of relevance (the church doesn’t need to be relevant – it should be timeless) to pulling out the big guns (’apostasy’, ‘heretical’, etc.) to kill such an awful notion. However, yesterday’s post ( “Why is cultural relevance a big deal?” ) with a link to Ed Stetzer’s post on Mark Driscoll’s Blog on the subject of relevance has left me a bit confused as to whether they might have changed their stance, or if the author (the anonymous “Editor”) was just unclear as to whether the link to Stetzer was an endorsement or a condemnation. The quote they chose to highlight from Stetzer’s article was pretty mundane and (at least to me) didn’t lend any clarity to their article.
My Take: I couldn’t have said it any better than Stetzer, and I’m 100% behind his position. Just some quotes:
The scriptures are relevant to this and every culture. They do not need updating, correcting, or revisioning. On the contrary, what needs revisioning is our understanding and obedience to God’s word as we live out His mission in context. When we live a humble orthodoxy and humble missiology, we will be salt and light in contemporary culture—a biblically-faithful, culturally-relevant, counter culture.
[...]
On the one hand, the church can be so focused on cultural relevance that it loses its distinctive message. Don’t think it won’t happen—it has happened to countless churches and denominations. On the other hand, it can decide that culture does not matter. That leads to a church whose message is indiscernible and obscure to those who are “outside.” Let me propose an alternative: our churches need to be biblically faithful, culturally relevant, counter culture communities.
[...]
Those who preach against culture are often unaware that they live in one. But the dynamic culture around them is often not the culture of their church. What they yearn for is typically not a scriptural culture, but rather a nostalgic religious culture of days past. The irony of this is that every church is culturally relevant. It is simply a matter of whether the culture of the church is in any way similar to the culture of its community or only meaningful to itself.
[...]
Before anything else, the church and its ministry must be biblically faithful. A lot of great conferences on creativity and ministry are helpful. But, we need to remember that our purpose is to apply that creativity in biblically and culturally relevant ways. The reason we engage culture is not to be cool, trendy, contemporary, or cutting edge—words that have become idols to us—but so that those who live in culture can hear the message of Jesus. That message is more than just “come to Christ,” it involves how we live and structure our lives, and it matters deeply.
[...]
Why, if we have the timeless truth of the gospel, do we need to concern ourselves with culturally relevant ministry? Because if we don’t, the message of the gospel gets confused with the cultures of old. The unchurched think that Christianity is a retrograde culture rather than a living faith. Our job is to remove the “extra” stumbling blocks of culture without removing the essential stumbling block of the cross (1 Corinthians 1:23). Unfortunately, the stumbling block of the cross has too often been replaced by the stumbling block of the church. Most people aren’t being recruited by other religions; they are being confused by the practice of ours.
Well said, Ed!
39 Comments(+Add)
This posting somewhat echoes the passage in Acts 15 where Peter, Barnabus, Paul, and James speak before the council of Jerusalem and determine not to burden the Gentiles with Jewish cultural traditions.
We have to be culturally relevant. What’s the first thing many people in the USA think of when it comes to Christian music? Pipe organs and choirs. (That was certainly my impression for many years)
Completely agree that the scriptures do not need updating — but the slight nuance a culture or people group will have on the Gospel message brings (in my mind) a depth to our understanding of God.
God desires the worship of ALL people groups. If we stick to a 20th century Western view of God there will be several people groups who never come to faith and join the worship of the One True God — ultimately delaying Christ’s second coming.
God created each of these cultures and people groups. Who are we to say my/our way is the only way???
We delay Christ’s return????!!!!!
Spare me. The day is fixed, it is not fluid, and most certainly does not depend on us.
The Gospel is the fragrance of death to those who are dying, a stumbling block to the religious, and foolishness to the learned. It is life and the power of God to salvation for all who believe.
God does not save cultures. He saves people FROM every tribe, tongue, and nation. I am all for freedom to worship in cultural context. However presenting the Gospel, i.e. evangelization, wrapped in any culture, leads to all kinds of problems. Why do people criticize western culture (justifiably so) for doing that very thing in the name of God, and then turn around and do the same cloaked in another cultural context? This is liberal politics.
This is from the New King James Version, 2 Peter 3:10 – 12:
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be *burned up.
11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness,
12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat?
It is interesting that in verse 12 Peter tells his readers to look for and hasten the coming of the day of God. Doesn’t the context seem to imply that by conducting yourselves in holy conduct and godliness that that will hasten the coming of the day of God?
I believe that God knows when the 2nd coming will be. It is a fixed date. However, I think that the Bible indicates that He has fixed that date based on circumstances on the earth.
Another factor that Russ hinted at is the preaching of the Gospel throughout the entire world.
Do you want Jesus to come soon? I think the Bible indicates what we should do is then:
1. Seek to spread the Gospel throughout the entire world
2. Seek to conduct ourselves in holy conduct and godliness
Chris P – I agree with your statement that people from every nation, tribe, and tongue are going to be saved.
Yet each of those saved people are IN a culture. I also agree with the article from Ed that was posted on CRN and here in excerpts.
My comment on this post was related to the last sentence quoted from Ed’s article and I was bringing it back to Acts 15. The council of Jerusalem determined not to bring cultural religious tradition to the level of spiritual acceptance (which some were proposing – that Gentiles were only accepted if they were circumcised).
Today we see that in different forms in evangelism such as when a person is saved their musical tastes should change or their hairstyle should change or you can’t wear blue-jeans to church. One person encouraging another person to change music style, hairstyle or clothing style is adding burden… or in the words of Acts 15 – make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Let God mold the saved person into who He desires the person to be.
and if that’s liberal in your mind, then it’s liberal in your mind. As for me – I’ve never been a liberal….PARTICULARLY in politics.
As for my note on delaying Christ’s return, my apologies, it was not as well written as it could have been in the quickness of my posting. I was trying to make my point about culture – yes, God knows the day and the hour that Christ will come again; but can we be sure that the day and hour is solid?
Gods desire in 2 Peter 3:9 is that “none should perish”, and when I read Matt 24:14 I read: “and this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.”
It would seem that God’s people have a very important part to play in ensuring the gospel is preached in the whole world — AND THEN Christ will come. God doesn’t need us, but He has chosen to have us serve in meeting this goal. Heaping the requirements of the “good old days” on a person living in the “here and now” works to impede the understanding and acceptance of the Gospel
God has complete foreknowledge, otherwise He is not omniscient, making Him something less than true God. Therefore, He foreknows all events, all of our choices, who will say yes, etc.
We are living in time, a created thing btw, and do not posess this knowledge, so we proclaim the Gospel, and let the Holy Spirit worry about who will hear it and respond..
It is God’s desire that none should perish, but that word desire/wish in Greek means exactly that,… desire.
It comes from the same root as the word Paul uses as will in Romans 9, when he says that men would ask “who can resist His will?”
The answer of course is, no one can.
His desire does not cause men to come to Him, but His will can, and does.
So we have such statements, made by Jesus Christ, as the Father draws men to Jesus, the Father has put them in His hand and no one can snatch them away, etc etc.
That word means His irrevocable will.
We do not have a clue who will come to the Lord at any given time, so we must proclaim the Word, and let God add daily those who are being saved, This is true for anyone whether you adhere to arminianism, or 5 point calvinism, or anything in between. The gospel of the Kingdom being preached to all the nations, does not mean that all men will come to acknowledge Jesus as Lord, before they are ultimately forced to “bend the knee.”
As for 2 Peter 3, we actually sing this in ouir church, the chorus being
‘hasten the day of redemption”
hasten the day of His return
the world will see its salvation
when with a shout He comes
with a shout He comes”
Peter is saying there is a preset day where the heavens and the earth will be cleansed with fore, thus necessitating the creation of the new heavens and earth at the end of the book of Revelation. He is also speaking of living holy lives, so he then puts the two together posing the question of how we ought to live, knowing that this day is coming. So from our side of the “time/eternity” line living such a life “hastens the day” From God’s view thwe day is foreknown therefore it is pre-set.
I am no supporter of the “good old days” either. One visit at our church and that would be apparent. However I do not support any manipulation ofn the Gospel via cultural “tricks”.
1 Cor 2:2
For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.
So, Chris – do you agree with Stetzer’s article or not?
As for foreknowledge, I think our concept of how that works and how it actually works are metaphysically different. Trying to extrapolate our view of time to how God works in multiple dimensions of time limits Him in ways I don’t think we can limit Him.
Also, what is a cultural “trick” vs. an appropriate application of cultural relevance?
It is funny to me that people who argue against cultural relevance usually use a church strategy that was developed to be culturally relevant about 200 years ago. Lets see…. 3 hymns, a sermon, a response song, offertory and benediction.
Now, where was that prescribed in the bible? Oh, it wasn’t. That structure was created by man to be relevant to the culture of the time. I would like to as the “no relevance” camp if they use this structure, or if they meet in homes and sing and share as the early church did. Because unless they are meeting in homes, they are using an out-dated culturally relevant method.
“God has complete foreknowledge, otherwise He is not omniscient, making Him something less than true God.”
Why? How do you know that? Is that in scripture?
It is impossible to communicate the Gospel devoid of any cultural influence. Even the language (- a cultural element) and the method (verbal, written, live or recorded – more cultural elements) a wrapped in cultural issues.
Chris P.
You probably don’t remember me, but I know you. I used to read Pomousings blog and I remember cringing every time you would post. My problem was not with much of what you said, rather the way you said it. I agreed with the substance of what you were saying but always wondered why you came across so angry. On this thread you don’t sound angry but your argument still makes me cringe.
“Either God is sovereign I.E. I’m right about God, or He isn’t God!” That’s crazy. Going back to my post about not having to prove anything, your logic is severely flawed. Any first year college student can tell you that correlation logic is the most dangerous. You use it almost indiscriminately.
Neil, good point. I know that Ingrid has inferred that God and his angels speak in english
I didn’t read any comments and perhaps some enlightened person has been able to help you discover the anonymous “Editor†at CRN, but just in case others are also confused and don’t know or they just don’t care about your lack of research skills, I thought I would help you out. Go look under “about us” and you will find that this secrete person is Ken….it’s clearly stated.
Sarah,
Ken himself wrote a short post (in the last week or two) explaining how “editor” works on CRN. Perhaps he is the primary editor, but apparently anyone can post comments under designation of “editor.”
Joe,
I’ve read your last post to Chris P a number of times and admit I don’t understand the content or purpose of it.
I don’t get how you perceive Chris as saying ““Either God is sovereign I.E. I’m right about God, or He isn’t God!â€
Doesn’t scripture show that God is sovereign? Is there something wrong with believing that God is sovereign? I admit, confess, that the God I see in scripture is a God who is absolutely in control of everything, past, present, and future. Would that make me somehow guilty of correlation logic? Please explain.
To Chris P you said, “Any first year college student can tell you that correlation logic is the most dangerous. You use it almost indiscriminately.” That’s a pretty hefty comment. Perhaps you could give many, many specific examples of what you mean.
Right, knew this before he posted it…but he is the editor.
Actually, he is now the owner….
Well, I’ve been waiting for awhile for a response to my comment…amy bit….anyone else?
Sorry Amy, between sickness, work and all that I almost missed your question to me. I don’t have time to go ferret out any quotes at this moment. (I’ve got church in about a half hour) but I will answer your question in two parts if that is ok.
1. The sovereignty issue.
First of all, let me say, I believe in God’s sovereignty. It’s in Scripture, I don’t believe I can get around it. Romans 9 would certainly be a hard passage to understand if I didn’t believe that way. However, I also believe that somehow God gives us free will. He allows us to chose things. To be completely transparent I struggle with the Calvinist (I myself went to a Calvinistic College and Seminary) who says that God ordained for some girl to get raped, or for that parent in Pittsburgh to freeze his little girl to death, or for the mom here in Ohio who cooked her 2 week old in a Microwave. I believe that somehow the two come together outside of my understanding and that is why I’m not sure that majoring on it is a good thing. I don’t know if you are guilty of correlation logic or not. Certainly not because you believe in God’s sovereignty would I say that. I would be interested in hearing your take on the whole rape, murder thing.
As for Chris P. Let’s look at that last argument. “Either God is sovereign or He isn’t God.” Does that sound logical to you? There’s no room for error there? You mean a Holy God who made the whole universe, and everything contained therein couldn’t give us Humans some free will? I’ll agree with you that he isn’t using Correlation Logic, but IMO he isn’t using any at all. If you go back a few post, you’ll find where I posted to the folks over at CRN that I don’t have to prove anything about Rob Bell, or any of their other favorite whipping posts. My only intent was to show Ken Silva was wrong. Chris came back with, “ahh, yeah you do!” In other words to prove their guy wrong I have to prove my guy right. Two problems with that. 1. The guys I defend are not my guys. 2. Again, it’s bad logic. One of the things you learn in science/math and even rhetoric classes is that sometimes all you can do is show the error in something and keep working until you solve whatever it is you are attempting to solve.
I have to admit, I’ve actually enjoyed the “new” CRN. They are actually attacking Ideas as opposed to people. They all link to their own blogs now, which I find amusing, in my own geek way.
If you disagree with me on Chris P’s logic, feel free. I’ve been known to be wrong many times before but go read his posts, his comments–especially when he’s angry—as in when he’s around Patrick Lane and you tell me. Does he use sound logic?
Sarah, I just read your question. Are you saying I don’t have any research skills? I’m not sure who the “you” is in your comment. My comment was directed to Chris P because he posted a comment here. I assumed that Ken was the author of the original post.
Amy, I was tempted to go back and change my comment but instead I will clarify it here. If you say that
“either God is sovereign or He is not God” which could also be said in an “if/then” statement: “If God is not Sovereign then He is not God.” then yes, I would have to say you are guilty of mis-using correlation logic.
It’s called strawman diversion. You guys do it all the time. EC people come onto the Reformed sites, read the post, don’t have any Scripture to back up your doctrine, so you pick out an insignificant perhaps juicy point in the article, make a snide remark about it, and lead the conversation away from what the article is all about. I was just trying out what you guys are pro’s at doing…guess I’ll have to work on my skills.
Sarah,
None of us are EC… If you’ve been reading us all that much, you’d know we’ve made this clear…
Sarah,
Thank you for helping me understand what I do all the time. By the way could I recommend a good Anger Management Therapist to you? (I’m just trying to keep my skills up so I can keep my “pro” status).
BTW, Sarah, what point have we made on this blog that we haven’t backed up with Scripture? And if you want to call me a name pick one worse than EC, you see I grew up in a Reformed church, went to a reformed college and even a reformed Seminary. I’m not afraid to tackle what I believe with Scripture, insignificant and juicy points in “reformed” articles aside. If you really want to discuss something you’ve come to the right place. We won’t ever ban your comments.
Shalom!
When I think of God’s sovereignty I understand it as His ultimately being in control. Of everything, including the rise and fall of nations. He is all-powerful, all-knowing, completely just. God chose to let Satan have power, and people chose to sin. He gives us the freedom to choose to sin. Thus we have evil in the world and “innocent” people suffer. I don’t blame God for the suffering that results from sin.
I believe that I could not have come to Christ unless He drew me to Him. And I believe that I have free will. Could I have resisted Christ’s drawing me to Him? I don’t see how. Do some people seem to resist Him? Yes. Can I explain how it all works? No.
Regarding Chris P’s logic, first of all, I don’t see where Chris P said, “Either God is sovereign or He isn’t God.†That was my first problem in trying to understand what you were saying. I don’t see those words written by Chris P and I wouldn’t sum up what he was saying in his comments on this post in that way.
Don’t you think that if you’re going to make a statement criticizing someone of using something “almost indiscriminately” it is good to back up what you’re saying with at least a few examples?
Amy – February 11th. Chris P. wrote in the comments to this post: “God has complete foreknowledge, otherwise He is not omniscient, making Him something less than true God.”
Amy, maybe you could read a little more carefully?
Amy,
Also, in regards to your view of sovereignty, I want to make sure I understand what you are saying–God is completely sovereign in whether or not you get saved but not sovereign over your neighbor attacking you because that’s sin? So your neighbor can sin in any way but resisting being drawn to God? Is that an accurate summation of what you were saying?
Regarding God’s sovereignty in salvation: I believe that people can’t come to Christ unless God draws them. I also believe that people have free will. Perhaps the two don’t logically connect, but that doesn’t bother me. I see both in scripture, and I acknowledge that both concepts are true without pretending to be able to explain how it all works.
God has complete control over how my neighbor treats me. He has complete control over Satan. He might allow my neighbor to attack me. He might allow Satan to attack me.
But if my neighbor attacks me, it can only happen if God allows it. Satan has certainly attacked me, in incredible ways, but I know that he could only do that if God allowed it, and I know that his “power” is a sham.
I frankly don’t know whether or not my neighbor can resist being drawn to God. I can’t answer all the “big questions” out there – I know that God isn’t willing that any should perish, and I know that He chooses who He will, and I know that people have free will. I’m quite content to let Him be who He is and admit that I don’t understand all the ways He works. To me that doesn’t affect that fact that He is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-wise, completely just, completely loving.
How is that for logic? I think the mysteries of God defy logic, and only through God’s Spirit can I accept the fact that He created the earth, loves people, died for sinners, and justly condemns those who reject him to hell.
By the way, I’m not interested in trying to analyze Chris P’s logic. I appreciate his interest in Scripture. The best discussion I ever read/was involved in was when he was in charge of SLICE for a while and had a long scripture-based discussion going on. I appreciate the God, scripture focus that he brought to SLICE.
Amy,
I agree with what you said about God and defying logic. I’ve even posted about that here. You are the one who brought it up to me and now, you seem to me to be acting like I’m trying to pick a fight with you.
As for Chris, you can’t have it both ways. You questioned me, I answered and now you’re trying to disengage. I appreciate your position but you came to me (figuritely speaking) and said, “hey what are you trying to say” I answered you. THen you said, he never said what I said he said, Russ showed you that he did say it.
You were the one who brought the discussion to me, now you’re saying, “I don’t want to talk about it.”
To paraphrase one of my students, “What’s up with that?”
And for the record Amy, I’m certainly not saying that everythign Chris has to say is faulty. That would be rediculous of me to say about almost anyone.
Joe, Russ,
I didn’t see Russ’s post earlier.
I did not connect “God has complete foreknowledge, otherwise He is not omniscient, making Him something less than true God.†with “Either God is sovereign I.E. I’m right about God, or He isn’t God!â€
First of all, I understand sovereignty as I defined it:”When I think of God’s sovereignty I understand it as His ultimately being in control. Of everything, including the rise and fall of nations. He is all-powerful, all-knowing, completely just.” So I did not automatically connect “foreknowledge” with “sovereignty.”
I was actually surprised/confused when you answered my question by beginning a discussing free will/calvinism, then thought, okay, I guess that is a sub-category of God’s sovereignty.
According to Webster’s dictionary, sovereignty is “the state or quality of being sovereign.” Sovereign, as a verb means, “above or superior to all others; chief; greatest; supreme. supreme in power, rank, or authority.
Lastly,if you want to define primarily as sovereign as “foreknowledge” I still don’t see how you can take the statement: “God has complete foreknowledge, otherwise He is not omniscient, making Him something less than true God.†and absolutely conclude that the person making the statement means: “Either God is sovereign I.E. I’m right about God, or He isn’t God!â€
As for your 10:54 am post, Joe, I don’t believe you ever have answered my questions.
Where did I say, “I don’t want to talk about it?”
Am I trying to pick a fight with you? First of all, I was simply trying to understand what you were talking about. Secondly, I was trying to get you to consider that your statement about Chris P’s logic might be an over-generalization and that you need to be careful about such generalizations. It’s not very loving, Joe. Also comes across as quite arrogant . . .
How have I disengaged, regarding Chris P’s logic? I’m simply not interested in doing a critical analysis of his logic. You made a statement about his logic that was very derogatory and I simply think that if you are going to make such statements you should give some evidence to support what you say. You may also want to explain your purpose for doing such a thing.
Quite frankly, Joe, I find the way that you talk about things difficult to follow. Whether that is my fault or yours I can’t say.
Amy,
How can you say “did not connect “God has complete foreknowledge, otherwise He is not omniscient, making Him something less than true God.†with “Either God is sovereign I.E. I’m right about God, or He isn’t God!â€
Traditionally, Foreknowledge goes to sovereignty. If you don’t put those two together that is fine, but that is the context from which I am coming at the Chris P. statement. You also said, “By the way, I’m not interested in trying to analyze Chris P’s logic. I appreciate his interest in Scripture. The best discussion I ever read/was involved in was when he was in charge of SLICE for a while and had a long scripture-based discussion going on. I appreciate the God, scripture focus that he brought to SLICE.” which I took to mean you didn’t want to talk about it anymore.
As for my original statement, just look at what Chris said. I don’t know how else to say it. I would submit to you that I never said his logic was faulty but his use of correlation logic was indiscriminate. I don’t think it was an over generalization at all. I don’t really think I have to explain my reasoning to you, either. I imagine you’ll find that arrogant as well, and I’m sorry for that but this whole thing was started by a post I addressed to him not you.
I understand you finding what I write hard to follow but I think what happens is you sort of skim what I have to say and then respond/react. I’ll give you some support for that before you ask for it. This thread. You missed Russ’s statement.
I don’t know if you’re trying to pick a fight with me or not. I think you react as opposed to respond in some of your comments, as I imagine we all do at some point.
Joe,
While I don’t always agree with her stances, I have always found Amy to be someone seeking the truth within discussions and not just trying to pick a fight.
Chris, (and Amy)
I did not in any way intend to say she was picking a fight with me. I said, “it seemed to me that she was saying I was trying to pick a fight with her. No where did I accuse her of tyring to pick a fight with me. Buy in one of her last post it almost seems like she can’t believe I’m responding to her. I do think when it comes to me she somewhat reacts. If you read this entire thread it’s almost a perfect example. I quoted Chris P in my original post. Somehow she didn’t make the same connection that I did. I understand that. What I find interesting is I’m not sure her definition of Sovereignty matches Chris P’s. If I’m not mistaken she also took offense in another post where I wrote about people my wife knew who did nothing for homeless people. Perhaps, my style rubs her wrong, I don’t know.
What I do know is what Chris P originally said, was ““God has complete foreknowledge, otherwise He is not omniscient, making Him something less than true God.â€
That is the same as saying, “Either God is what I believe about Him or He isn’t God.”
That is all I was trying to say in my orignal post. When she questioned me about it, I responded. Then when she said, I misquoted him someone else pointed out his quote. Then she said, she is not interested in dissecting his logic. How can that be, when she is the one who started the discussion with me over my “attack” of his use of logic. Forgive me, but that is incongruent.
A true reformationist cannot help but tie foreknowledge/salvation/soveriegnty together. I’m not saying that I think Amy is not a true reformationist, but I am saying I’m not sure she can separate one from the other.
Make sense?
Joe
Joe,
As for your question, “How can you say “did not connect “God has complete foreknowledge, otherwise He is not omniscient, making Him something less than true God.†with “Either God is sovereign I.E. I’m right about God, or He isn’t God!â€
Traditionally, Foreknowledge goes to sovereignty.” – - I wasn’t aware that traditionally, foreknowledge goes to sovereignty. As I explained I think of it as something much bigger. But I will try to be aware in future discussions that some (many?) people use the term this way.
But where did you get the implied info “I’m right about God?”
I think that your adding “I’m right about God” as a way of describing what Chris P said is an interpretation of a perceived attitude behind Chris P’s statement. That is NOT what he said. If he actually has that attitude, okay, then you have grasped the underlying meaning of what he said. Perhaps you’ve picked up on an attitude on his part like that elsewhere. For my part, when I see the statement “God has complete foreknowledge, otherwise He is not omniscient, making Him something less than true God.†I see a possible underlying meaning of a person humbly thinking, “I wouldn’t dare to suggest that God is not omniscient. Who am I to do such a thing?” That’s NOT what he said, either, so what I think may underly his statement is also an interpretation of what he says.
But my interpretation doesn’t slander anyone. Yours does. That’s part of the reason I wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying. That statement, along with your statement about his logic, is together quite condemning of Chris P. Yes, your comment was written to Chris P, but I, and a lot of other people are reading what you’ve written. I personally have benefitted from some of the things Chris P has written and I comment on here enough to feel like I don’t want to add a silent “amen” to what you said by saying nothing.
Implying that someone, Chris P, or Chris L, Amy, or anyone has an arrogant attitude of “I’m right about God or he’s not God” and implying that a person uses a particular type of faulty logic “almost indiscriminately” is a big criticism to make. You made it publically to Chris P and I have every right to comment on it. I have little doubt that if I had made either of the comments about Rick Warren you wouldn’t have hesitated to step in with all kinds of criticism directed towards me.
What you said was SIGNIFICANT criticism, so if you believe that it is truth, and not slander, then back up what you’re saying. And make sure people understand why you feel the need/concern to have people see the error of his ways. Is he leading people into lies? Away from God? A brother whose attitude you feel is hurting the body?
Regarding skimming what you say, that’s not usually the case. I often read what you’ve written a number of times before replying. My missing Russ’s statement is a different kind of thing. I’m sorry that I missed it – but I’m not going to beat myself over the head for not seeing it. I appreciate him posting it. As I’ve said, it didn’t clarify things for me.
On another comment you made I apologized for taking “these people” as a generalization. However, when I went back and read that (for about the 6th time) I’m still not sure what you meant. I’m still not sure if “these people” referred to the people you were talking about in the sentence previously, or if you were making a generalization.
Amy,
My understanding of slander seems to be something completely different than yours. Slander is me saying something about you without you knowing it or something I can’t back up. I can use his statement here or on another post (I don’t have to prove anything) to prove that his use of logic is at best, poor.
So now we’ve come to a problem, I feel I’ve met yoru requirements of me and you still feel they’re inadequate. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I’m not sure what else I can do.
Maybe I’ll write out a post explaining my problems with things like that. I dont’ know what else to do.
Amy,
My understanding of slander seems to be something completely different than yours. Slander is me saying something about you without you knowing it or something I can’t back up. I can use his statement here or on another post (I don’t have to prove anything) to prove that his use of logic is at best, poor.
So now we’ve come to a problem, I feel I’ve met yoru requirements of me and you still feel they’re inadequate. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I’m not sure what else I can do.
Maybe I’ll write out a post explaining my problems with things like that. I dont’ know what else to do.
When I read what he wrote, I say to myself, How can you not see the implied “I’m right?” I mean he’s saying that is what he believes and if it isn’t right then God is something less than God. Isn’t that saying, “I’m right or God isn’t God?” Sombody else weigh in here. Tell me (us) what you think.
Sorry about the double post. The second one is the complete one. I’m at work and I am on a five minute break so I’m hurrying, which caused me to hit submit before I was ready.
Joe,
of what you wrote. (Or with any sovereignty 
either.) (Oops, I guess that’s redundant.)
Just to not cause anymore confusion, your(2:53) and Chris L’s (2:41) post was posted as I wrote mine, so nothing I said in my post (3:31) is with any foreknowledge
Just a response to one thing in Joe’s 2:41 post. You’re right, I’m not interested in dissecting Chris P’s logic. I mean that I personally have no time or interest in doing such a thing. I’m interested in getting you to see that your criticism is a significant criticism and that if it’s true you should support what you are saying.
I mentioned that I had personally benefited from some of the things he has written. That was on Slice. The articles that he put on there were primarily what I would call devotional. He didn’t interact with people all that much but when he did he usually tried to use scripture and put a lot of thought into what he said. In addition I think that he has a heart that desires for people to worship God.
I have observed some of the interaction between him and you all, and a very small amount on another site (emergent no) perhaps. I’m not defending everything he says or the way he says it. I know very few people (including myself) who I would do that for, perhaps nobody. But I really feel like if people are going to be heavily criticized it needs to be done with great care, and with attention to detail, with some God-honoring goal in mind.
This posting and conversation was brought a new twist tonight as I read the writings of Ralph Winter when he spoke (in 1974!) to the Lausanne Congress on World Evangelism:
“Are we in America, for example, prepared for the fact that most non-Christians yet to be won to Christ (even in our own country) will not fit readily into the kinds of churches we now have?”
And:
“Present-day American Christians can wait forever in their cozy, middle-class pews for the world to come to Christ and join them. But unless they adopt [evangelism that crosses language and culture] and both gout out after these people and help them found their own churches, evangelism in America will face, and is already facing, steadily diminishing returns.”
These quotes came long before the Slice 2.0/CRN group was railing on the word “missional”.