A Heartfelt Comment…
This is rather unusual for this blog/format, but I would like to take a comment from the thread started yesterday by Nathan (thanks!) and elevate it to a post of its own – because of its tone, content and concise thought. I could not agree more, and I only wish I could write as thoughful and sarcasm-free comments as this gentleman (who is a first-time commenter on this blog):
_____________________
Ken,
I don’t know you, and I don’t know all your motives, but I will assume that you do what you do out of a sincere conviction and love.
I am a frequent visitor of CRN, and I’ve read much of your problems with ‘emergent’, the ‘emerging church’, Rob Bell, Donald Miller, Brian Mclaren, Erwin McManus, and others.
I do agree with some of what you say on CRN, namely about T.D. Jakes, Sylvia Brown, and maybe a few others (though I disagree with you centering on T.D. Jakes ideas of the trinity and not pointing out the equally important fact of his lavish lifestyle and false teachings about a ‘rich’ Jesus)
One of my main concerns is what you’ve said about Donald Miller. First of all, you label him ‘emergent’, which is pretty untruthful, unloving, and wrong. And your arguments against him…I dunno, but this link here contains a quote from him: http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/02/is_donald_mille.html
Then after quoting him, you proceed to tear him apart, label him emergent, and denounce his ‘teachings’ as heretical. You take one quote, and then you pretty much tell him what he meant. That’s not how it works. As Paul washer has said, you have to read the whole book to see what he meant. and I recommend reading Searching For God Knows What by Donald Miller if you haven’t yet. It may clear things up. If not, well, I’m sorry that you have that misunderstanding of him. And, by the way, his church, Imago Dei, is ‘reformed,’ as you also seem to be and as Paul Washer is (I’m pretty sure.) I hope your perception and (hopefully) misunderstandings about Miller will clear up.
When I first read all your info on Rob Bell, I thought some things you said were somewhat valid. (By the way, thanks for having a link to his sermon on revelation, I loved it)
However, when I got his book, Velvet Elvis, and got to read it myself, I was shocked at how some of the things he said were distorted . For example he said “you can’t simply do what the Bible says.†But in the book, Bell goes on to explain why- because before we can do it, we have to decide what it means!!! Before we can love our neighbor, we have to understand and decide what love is, what it looks like, who our neighbor is, etc. Before we can believe in Jesus we have to understand who Jesus is, what believing means, whether it is simply agreeing to a list of ideas or not. (Donald Miller talks quite a bit about the whole agreeing to a list of ideas/facts in his book SFGKW)
I recommend being very wise in which battles you choose, as well as reading what John has to say in 1 John about what God wants from us: 1) to believe in Jesus, and 2) to love one another. It seems to me that those two things, along with loving the Lord our God, are really the core and essentials of our faith.
love in Christ,
Tim
______________________
Thank you, Tim.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
30 Comments(+Add)
Kudos to Tim for a nice post.
On the web it’s easy to let the rhetoric escalate and forget we all serve the same King. This is particularly difficult when those we disagree with keep implying that some may serve a different master.
It would be nice, in the future, if all sides would tone down the rhetoric and stick to the disagreements. This very well may be a naive wish – ala John Lennon wishing we’d give peace a chance – given last evenings post by Ken which offered Sylvia Browne as the logical outcome of Dan Kimball.
In my response I tried to address areas of agreement and disagreement – pointing out the illogical leaps – without questioning Ken’s theology, motives, nor relationship to out common Lord.
Goof thoughts Tim.
Neil
Herein is the “rub”.
A “nice tone” does not equal an accurate letter.
“For example he said “you can’t simply do what the Bible says.†But in the book, Bell goes on to explain why- because before we can do it, we have to decide what it means!!! Before we can love our neighbor, we have to understand and decide what love is, what it looks like, who our neighbor is, etc. Before we can believe in Jesus we have to understand who Jesus is, what believing means, whether it is simply agreeing to a list of ideas or not.”
First and foremost no one at CRN ever suggested that true conversion came about by agreeing to a set of rules. That is a broad-brush tactic, and well, frankly one that both emerging and emergent use frequently. It is not truthful. It is merely rhetoric, and not even good rhetoric.
As for the rest of Bell’s statement,
The scriptures tells us who are neighbors are, what love actually is, (a clue it’s not the touchy-feely goop that is pedaled to the churches) and most especially who Jesus is. He does not exist independent of the Scriptures.
This blog claims that it is not ecm, yet most of the comments and posts show clearly the taint of the post-modern midrash.
The church is so infected with emergent, charismaniac, pelagian, and mega church philosophies it doesn’t even realize how far off the tracks it actually is. Most of this stuff has already been mainstreamed.
David Kjos at Thirsty Theologian said it best;
“On babies and bathwater: I don’t need to give my respect to men of dubious character or qualification “because they make a valuable contribution to the conversation.†I can throw out their baby with their bathwater because that same baby can be found in cleaner water elsewhere.”
http://www.thirstytheologian.com/2006/08/30/140.php
His other points on his post entitled “Truth “ are an accurate representation as to how we are to approach all matters in the church.
“Speaking the Truth in love” does not mean witholding certain salient points based on the fact that they may offend, (the point of Mike Ratliff’s posts on obedience btw), or speaking in a soft effeminate voice, (that is truly one of the church’s main problems).I would rather be called “mean” than lie by omission.
This is slightly off topic, but is it even legal to continually quote large portions of a book that was/is being sold? Don’t tell anyone but I own and have read Chambers and Tozer, but I don’t use them as posts. Maybe fodder for posts, but I thought it was plagerism. I mean if they keep this pace up we won’t have to buy the book. Which would help my budget but…
“…and most especially who Jesus is. He does not exist independent of the Scriptures.”
Do you really believe that? The life of the man named Jesus is dependent upon the Bible I have sitting on my desk? If there were no scripture, there would have been no Jesus?
Chris P
You wrote
This is a straw-man argument (yet again), because nobody OUTSIDE of CRN suggested that CRN says that true conversion comes about by agreeing to a set of rules.
It was Ken who took Bell’s quote “You can’t simply do what the Bible says” and ripped it from its remaining context to give the (false) appearance that Bell was a heretic.
It’s also interesting that you recognize ‘broad-brush tactics’, yet you willingly and purposely use them here all the time. When you purposely refuse to distinguish ‘emerging’ from ‘Emergent’, and when you lump everyone that you disagree with into the ‘Emergent’ label and then blast away, you not only stop speaking to us (since we’re not Emergent), and just start sounding completely irrelevant, because you just completely miss the point of discussion to go off on a diatribe.
Nobody here suggests that ’speaking the truth in love’ is something mushy, but we also don’t consider being offensive over the slightest of disagreements to be ‘truth in love’ – it is abusive, particularly when dealing with brothers.
And they will gather around themselves people who will simply tell them what they already wanted to believe…
Now see Ken, I KNOW that you are supposed to put that in quotes. I mean you are quoting the Apostle Paul, right? Calling us heretics, right? Way to go! Don’t answer his question. I fear unless the LORD gives you eyes to see you will die failing to see what it is you do.
KenFish Translation: I can’t reply, so I will just be sanctimonious
No problem Joe…I know where I’ve been and I know Who called me…and I know what’s at stake…and I have no fear who will be standing when it’s over.
Demonstrated yet again – twice in the same thread…
…and thus, a heartfelt call to discuss the issues and disagreements as brothers and sisters in Christ is met with sarcasm, hostility, and implications that we are not of the faith.
According to the Apostle, as far as it is possible we are to live at peace – we have tried, but alas…
Neil
Ken,
Could you simply respond to the accusation that you took the Bell quote out of context? Would it be so hard to say “I didn’t… and here’s why…”? We are not asking you to agree with us. We are looking for reason behind what you author.
It seems to me that you are afraid of criticism (and accountability for that matter). You have stopped the two sided discussion at CRN, you have failed to clearly answer any questions here, and your sarcastic tone makes me think that, as you say, are just taking your ball and going home.
“We are looking for reason behind what you author.”
Well to quote you…
“And they will gather around themselves people who will simply tell them what they already wanted to believe… ”
so believe what you want Ken… and realize this applies to you also.
Blessings,
iggy
Ken,
You wrote:
Not tracking here… You don’t believe that there’s any reason behind what you author? If so, I would agree – both spiritually and logically…
nathan…
Ken does not seem to think he has to be held accountable… that is a sign of a cult leader btw… in fact it is #1 on the list…
1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
Ken holds he is the absolute authority and thus needs not to be accountable…
Blessings,
iggy
I might add #2 as it seems fitting also as most have seen from his comments…
2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
and that is only the first two..!
blessings,
iggy
Basically, along with all his other accusations, Ken’s calling us liars…
Not surprising, but it is a disappointing response to heartfelt questions between brothers in Christ.
Still curious why the anger… we serve the same King!
Neil
Sorry guys
I did not miss the point. Your agenda is too obvious to miss.
Lumping ecm with emergent is not a broad-brush since many in the ecm utilize the rants of the “emergent” crowd. Emergent claims to be part of the ecm. You really can’t seperate them in all honesty. If you don’t want to be identified “as” something, or “with” something, then get away from it.
As for the Scriptures and the Lord;
Without the scriptures Jesus would have existed, and does exist, however would His existence been known to all men?
The written logos and the logos made flesh cannot be seperated in the context of revelation.
Jesus answered Satan in the desert with “it is written”
The written word testifies of Jesus and is the revelation of His plan of salvation.John 5:37-47
The book is the revelation of Jesus.The rest is pseudo-gnosticism.
Chris P,
I don’t ‘identify’ with either Emergent or emerging. However, I agree with the emerging ‘missional’ approach that is more externally focused. I also agree with their desire to separate what is Biblical from what is traditional/creednal and the eschewing of systematic theologies. However, I do not hold to the liberal theology of Emergent.
The bottom line, though, is that NONE of the writers here (and only a few commenters) consider themself or align themselves with the ecm, so to continue to label them as such and then to blast away is not useful in any way.
“If you don’t want to be identified “as†something, or “with†something, then get away from it.”
We have been trying, but you and your crew haven’t allowed it!
Thanks everyone for the response to my post.
And, Chris P. thanks for your response/criticism also.
First of all, I’d like to apologize for anything I said that was unclear. You seemed to think I said that those at CRN thought that true conversion came about by believing a set of rules. I can see why you might have thought that, and I probably should have worded myself better. I meant that we have to decide from the Scriptures whether believing in Jesus means agreeing to a set of rules/beliefs, or not. I simply used it as an example, and to point to Donald Miller’s excellent book.
But still, if you look at Ken’s post on Donald Miller, he insisted that Miller was ‘part of the new cult of liberalism,’ and has a ‘lack of Christian character.’
Now, to say he is part of a cult is basically saying he is a heretic (please correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t all cults heretical?). And when you say something like that, you had better be right, and I think God would be very displeased if you were wrong. So, if you haven’t read the whole book, Ken, please do so before you make a false judgment on him and endanger yourself. I think you know as well as I do that falsely slandering a brother in Christ is very wrong and displeasing to the Lord. And, the argument against him was based on the fact that he said that Jesus did not want us to ““believe†certain ideas or “do†certain things in order to be a Christian.” So, using a little step of logic, I would think that Ken thinks that Jesus wants us to “believe” certain ideas and “do” certain things in order to be a Christian. So once again, Ken, IF you have not read the book, I beg you to do so before jumping to any conclusions.
Then you also say he has a ‘lack of Christian character.’ Again, that is a VERY dangerous thing to say about someone unless you are completely sure. The first thing I’d like to point out is that in Blue Like Jazz, Miller didn’t leave out things, he wrote it like it happened. He got drunk, and he wrote about it. He smoked, he wrote about it. He drank, he wrote about it. And by the way, many of the instances are from his younger, college years. Also by the way, he believes that drunkenness is a sin, he barely drinks at all now, and he doesn’t smoke. And as far as Christian character goes, it’s not all about not doing those things—it also includes ‘love one another’, or ‘love your neighbor as yourself’. Actually, according to John, that’s one of God two commandments for us. I would dare to say that Donald Miller does indeed love others with true Biblical love, and therefore he has ‘good Christian character.’
And, to clear up any further misunderstanding, I am not ‘emerging’, ‘Emergent’, or any label such as those. I don’t think it’s even possible. I’m just a kid, and I go to a small, very conservative church. The women still wear head coverings and scarcely utter a word during the church services. We sing old hymns with no instruments but a nice little piano. There are a lot of old people there. To be honest, it’s probably about as far from ‘emerging’ as you can get. So, please don’t think I’m ‘emerging’ or give me some label. Please. And I’m not accusing anyone of doing this, I’m saying this just incase someone feels like labeling me.
I first posted on here is that I felt it was necessary to defend brothers in Christ that were being attacked. I think it is our duty to do so.
And, Chris, you are right. The Scriptures do tell us what love is. But, to interpret ‘love your neighbor as yourself’, you have to go elsewhere to learn what love is, and even then there are many different definitions of love, although I would say that the general idea is the same(this is a whole different discussion, please don’t start an argument about what love is)
And, yes I know it’s not the ‘touchy feeling goop’. Trust me, I know. I would say true love is more along the lines of selfless, unbiased service to others.
I disagree with you saying that ‘emerging’ and ‘Emergent’ are one and the same. Is Mark Driscoll Emergent? What about Rick McKinley and the Imago Dei church? What about people like Rob Bell, Miller, and Erwin McManus who don’t claim to be emerging or Emergent. Why call them it then? (Please, I beg you, stop the useless and dangerous labeling of people)
Finally I just want to bring this up again, and ask for a response to this. I am NOT challenging anyone, I simply would like some input on this. I mentioned the fact that in the book of John there are two commands, 1) believe in Jesus, and 2) love one another. Also, in the book of John, and also in the book of James (I think it’s James…?), there is a very clear definition of who is from God and who is not: the one who believes Jesus is the Son of God is from God and dwells in Him, and the one who says He is not the Son of God is not from God. Would you (anyone who wants to answer) agree that the two real essentials of our faith are: believing in Jesus Christ and loving one another?
Here are some Scriptures. I couldn’t find the second passage (that was supposed to be in James) that says if someone believes Jesus is the Son of God then he is of God, but this will do. (1 John 2:22-23; 3â€23-24; 4:12-16) (James 2:8) (John 15:12-14)
One more question. Chris P. and Ken, what do you do with Scriptures such as Matthew 25:31-46. Again, I’m not at all trying to be accusing or anything. I just really would like to know your take on that passage. I find it quite intriguing to say the least.
Sorry this is so long, and thank you to anyone who took the time to read it.
Tim
Ken and Chris P, could you answer some of the questions I asked, especially about Donald Miller, 1 John, and Matthew 25:31-46?
Tim,
I very much liked your long post. And the scripture references brought about this train of thought:
In all of them, they talk about those who love their neighbors, love God, and live in His spirit. I John 3:24 says “we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.” We visually, experientially witness that Spirit by its fruits, since it is an intangible thing (person). Fruits: LOVE, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. And these fruits aren’t just to be witnessed in action with non-believers or just with believers, they are to be seen in ALL areas of our lives, in ALL interactions with EVERYONE on this earth, as far as our own personal relationships go.
Another thought: When we speak the truth in love, do you think that maybe God means speaking the Truth (big T – as in telling of the one who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life) as opposed to speaking the truth (little t – “I will tell you truthfully all the things that you do wrong, because we should always be ‘honest’ with each other”)? I think too many Christians today don’t understand the difference. Of course, I believe that there are times to do both, but the latter should only be used, I believe, when you are in a close, personal, mentoring-type relationship with someone who is truly trying to live a Christ-like life. If this Spirit is powerful enough to lead us in all wisdom (see James 3:17), then surely it is powerful enough to convict someone who is trying to follow Christ.
Anyway, just a few thoughts. I appreciated BLJ. It challenged me to continue to change my formerly-hyper-legalistic views, and try and figure out what it would look like in today’s society, to truly treat others as Christ would. Accepting and loving of them as people whom God loves, relational in my witness. That of course, means that I have to actually form relationships with people that I have formerly not associated with because of their sinful lives and the lack of anything in common. I am learning to appreciate people like these as ones sought after by God, beautifully and wonderfully created, desperately in need of knowing the love of Jesus Christ. And I have to show them that love in live action. Anyway, kudos to Donald…
Zan
Zan,
Thanks for the post. Yeah, I think you’re right about experiencing the fruits of the Spirit by each of those characteristics being lived out in every part of our life. Nice thought.
Interesting thought about the Truth. I take is you mean simply telling about Jesus rather than getting all picky about various theological differences. I think there are many unclear, ‘blurry’ things in the Christian faith that should be discussed openly and not regarded as absolute truths, but the facts that Jesus is the Truth, the Christ, the Son of God, redeemer, etc. are ‘absolutes’ and essentials. I think a lot of people confuse what is essential and what is not, myself included. A lot, I think, has to do with pride and the desire to be right, and, if you know you are right, the desire to show others your better understanding of God and the Scriptures.
I think a lot of the problems in Christianity are because of a desire to have ’superior’ or ‘perfect’ theology, which then takes away from our main purpose and our unity.
Am I kind getting what you’re saying?
And I think some also focus too much on love being pretty much telling others the truth. Yes, if you love someone you will tell them the truth. But what if you disagree with someone elses ideas about what things are true and what aren’t? So it really turns into ‘if you love, you will tell others my ideas about what is true.’ And like you said, that may come from a misunderstanding of the difference between truth and the Truth.
And the other problem with love being emphasized as telling others the truth is that in the Bible love almost always is selflessly serving others. Giving yourself up for others. Being kind and gracious with someone who hurt you. Taking a homeless kid into your home. That seems a lot more like Biblical love…
And Blue Like Jazz was a great book. It helped me a lot.
Tim
Tim,
I’ve been busy this weekend and haven’t read any posts for a few days, but I just quickly read part of your post about your church and wanted to tell you about mine.
My family recently (for about two months) started going to a non-denom church where about 1/3 of the members seem to be from a Mennonite background. I don’t know if that’s the kind of church yours is – I realize that not everyone who wears a head covering is Mennonite. The church I go to now is the most unusual church I’ve ever been to; there is a wonderful sense of devotion to God, to each other, and concern and reaching out to non-believers. There are very conservative people, in dress and practice, and less conservative people. One of the emphasisis is on families, stressing male leadership – not domineering male leadership, but spiritual leadership that costs the man something: they stress the man not only teaching his family, but living it, and really loving his wife and children. The ministries, which are numerous, have all or almost all been family initiated – for example, one family will start doing child evangelism, and another will join. There are at least 10 different races represented, because many families in the church have adopted – a truly daily carrying out of “caring for the orphans.” The church is elder run and though there is one who speaks about half the time, any other male can give a message. My husband and I have really been blessed by the teaching. The music is varied, with both hymns and contemporary, using guitar, piano, sometimes violin – and is led by different family groups. A lot of thought seems to go into the theme, words of the songs that are chosen. There is a big emphasis on prayer, on ministering to others in the body, on evangelism and both US and foreign missions.
I realize that some of the people that go to my church would be viewed as other people as “legalistic,” just looking at how they dress. Yet I find the families to be ones who truly love the Lord and others and don’t expect everyone else to do things the same way they do.
Amy,
Thanks for sharing about your church. The churches I’ve attended aren’t Mennonite though. They’re non-denominational, but are also known as the ‘brethren.’ And, well, they’re really strict on the head covering thing. And they think its willful disobedience if you don’t wear one while in a church meeting. I don’t agree with that, but its ok. From my experiences, though, they tend to not have many
‘ministries’ at all. They do have a great affection for Christ, tho. They all use either J. N. Darby or King James bibles.
I honestly have a little trouble with them. Everything from the old, old hymns with either one or no instruments, how they use ‘thee’ and ‘thou’ in prayers, and they way some of them can go soooo far into some scriptures it makes me wonder if they were even meant to be gone into that deep.
The church I go to now has about 50 people. It’s not quite the kind my dad likes the most, but it’s one of the very few head-covering wearing non-deonominational churches here, I suppose. The ones I’ve been to in other cities that my dad likes to go to usually always have a ’sit around in the circle and have a bible study’ time for just the men, while everyone else sits outside the circle and listens. Thats when they can start getting deeep into Scripture.
Most everyone at the churches are really nice, tho I don’t agree on everything. I know what you mean about some thinking they’re ‘legalistic’ b/c of how they dress, but honestly, some can take it too far when they say that dressing fancy is more honorable to the Lord and that if you don’t, and you can, that it is less honorable because you’re not dressing your ‘best’. I think that’s a bit legalistic…
And some can take some things a little too far (IMO)…such as being separate from the world. And some might not like ideas or interpretations other than theirs (from my experience, they all seem to have a lot in common…such as they’re almost all dispensational premillenialists…)
Your church sounds really nice. I’ve been to a one non-denominational church with a friend once that seems a bit like yours. They had a few instruments – nothing too old-fashioned but nothing crazy – and very good bible teaching. My dad doesn’t really let me go to other churches often tho though because they tend to not believe in head-coverings and women tend to speak once in a while…(in my opinion, thats a bit ‘legalistic’, but that’s just my opinion)
I think our churches are very different. Everyone, including women, are free to speak up during and after the sermon, if they’d like.
There is no pressure at all to wear head coverings either.
Also, the church has people with varying views on cessasionism, end times, etc. Elders try to make clear when they are speaking what they really feel is clear in God’s word and what is a matter that could be interpreted in various ways.
Tim,
Probably”cessationism” not “cessasionism.”
Ken doesn’t answer to the likes of us.
I appreciate the accountability that this website has pointed towards Brother Ken and Sister Ingrid.