O N03Z! Christians Working with Non-Christians – AGAIN!
If Rick Warren working with Barak Obama wasn’t “bad” enough, now it seems that Ingrid’s got her knickers in a twist because Angelina Jolie is supporting Global Action for Children, an effort started by Kay Warren. Apparently, Jolie’s support (in Ingrid’s eyes) is unwelcome, because of her sinful lifestyle.
At the crux of the legalistic outrage from the watchdawggie crowd are (at least) three questions:
1) Should Christians work with non-Christians in relief of human suffering?
2) Should Christians even be involved with missions whose primary visible function is relief of human suffering?
3) Should Christians accept money from sources (Christian and non-Christian) who earned their money via legal, but morally questionable, avenues?
Here is my take on these three questions:
1) Should Christians work with non-Christians in relief of human suffering?
Why not? If another human being, made in the image of his/her Creator, is compelled by God to do good for others (since no good comes from themselves, but only from God), what do we say about this when we refuse to work with them? What kind of witnesses are we – with the way we live, which speaks louder than any words we may say – when we only will associate with other Christians? How do we go make disciples, when we will only associate with other disciples? When we work beside them – witnessing with our very lives what we believe – we are not only witnessing to those we serve directly, but those we serve with. While they may serve for their own good or their own conscience, we serve for God, and the difference will be seen.
Ms. Jolie has some incredibly troubling issues in her life – many documented by the media. Is it not good for her to enter the counsel of a godly woman like Kay Warren, who might witness to her and bring her into the Kingdom. Or – has Ms. Jolie eternally exempted herself from ever entering the Kingdom? Or – must she meet some threshold and perform some ‘penance’ before we will accept her work for the Kingdom? If her involvement in this mission is only to ease her own troubled conscience, it will not satisfy. If her involvement is a step on the path to her to acceptance of the grace given by God, we should rejoice! Can we not trust God with this outcome? Either way, the alleviation of suffering of the children of parents dead, or dying, of AIDS, will be accomplished.
2) Should Christians even be involved with missions whose primary visible function is relief of human suffering?
As Chris P has let us know, “the only cure for AIDS is death”, but I think the Christian response to this specific situation (AIDS in Africa) and others like it needs to involve Jesus philosophy, instead:
Love your neighbor as yourself. (Matt 23:39)
Let’s see what Paul might have to say on the subject:
Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others. (Corinthians 10:24)
Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers. (Galatians 6:9-10)
Or, James, the brother of Jesus:
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. (James 1:27)
Or David’s Psalm, remembered by Jesus on the cross, predicting what would happen as a result of Jesus’ suffering:
The poor will eat and be satisfied; they who seek the LORD will praise him— may your hearts live forever! (Psalm 22:26)
Or the proverb writer:
He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. (Proverbs 14:31)
Or Ezekiel:
Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. (Ezekiel 16:49)
I think you get the point.
Now, some may ask “but when do you start sharing the gospel?” I would respond “when did you stop?” Sharing the gospel message without acting out the gospel is only half a gospel, and vice versa. If you are living out the gospel and you trust Jesus to demonstrate himself through you and God to stir the hearts of those who will choose Him, this opportunity will come. Sharing the gospel by living it takes a whole lot more guts, perseverence and fortitude than shouting into a bullhorn as the world passes by proclaiming to all that they are going to hell, but never knowing them by name.Â
3) Should Christians accept money from sources (Christian and non-Christian) who earned their money via legal, but morally questionable, avenues?
First off, I think that there is plenty of sciptural support to reject money given – both to the church and to serve the poor – when that money was gained via theft/extortion/etc. That isn’t what we’re talking about here.
I am addressing ‘given money’ as going to one of two places – 1) the local church or 2) a parachurch ministry serving the poor.Â
In the case of the local church, I am a supporter of the practice of only asking members of the church to give to it, and to take care that no strings are attached to it – and that it was not gained in a way that could come back to hold the church liable. For example, I know of a family in a city we used to live in who took out a loan for one purpose and gave it all to their church, and then defaulted on the loan - which then came back in the form of a threatened lawsuit against the church (which returned the money to the lender when it learned of the source). With a local church, it is also important that the body would not be seen as ‘beholden’ to any external entity, and rejecting direct corporate donations would be appropriate.
What about lottery winnings? I am not a supporter of legalized gambling for many reasons, but I don’t see that refusing to allow a member of a church to give money received in this manner gives a good witness of Christ (unless it is an outspoken opponent of such, in which case it would be hypocritical to accept the money). Jesus did not dissuade Zaccheus’ urge to give half of his money to the poor (even with the implication that Zaccheus had cheated people to get it, though some intepretations suggest his response was one of an honest tax collector).
In the case of serving the poor, I think that some of the same concerns exist (like with legal strings attached), but that donations from Christians and non-Christians alike should be accepted. Corporate donations, as well, seem appropriate for service work, as they are directly funneled into service – as long as there are no strings attached.
In this third question, I think it is important for church leaders and ministry leaders to consider them on a case-by-case basis, to determine if the gift is appropriate. There are too many factors involved, and too little direct scriptural guidance to create our own ‘hard and fast rules’ – though, perhaps, my reading of the situation and the supporting scripture may be corrected.
116 Comments(+Add)
Does anyone else notice that most of Slice 2.0’s stuff seems to be stuff the Ingrid already wrote for CRN/Slice 2.0? I guess she wasn’t getting enough attention–at least her posts weren’t?
This is an EXTREMELY difficult question that probably should be a case by case basis with all of the kibitzers giving Warren the benefit of the doubt. I think it would be wrong to join with the head of the Satanic Church (you get the picture) but this woman needs Jesus and maybe God can use Mrs. Warren. If your neighbor’s house was on fire would you accept help from the Mormon down the street?
Does it occur to anyone that one of the resaons this scenario is possible is that many western Christians are on the sidelines when it comes to third world human suffering. And in the midst of unravelling the “should Mrs. Warren cooperate with Ms. Jolie” question the larger question is what are we going to do about the lost AIDS sufferers?
Ms. Jole’s lifestyle accurately expresses her spiritual condition, but instead of calling for prayer some call for judgment. I disagree with Rick Warren on many levels, but when it comes to desiring God to use him to lead someone to Christ should we not all come together at least on that?
And if Mrs Warren was used to lead Ms. Jolie to Christ there would be some who couldn’t even rejoice. That is very sad.
Chris L,
I’m not trying to pick a fight here, but I’m confused.
I thought you were part of the Emergent crowd.
Emergents don’t debate propositional truth claims. In fact a few that I’ve been chatting with told me that certainty about any truth claims is equal to arrogance and pride.
You seem so sure of yourself and your beliefs and you use exclusive and narrow propostional truth claims to refute other truth claims.
What’s the deal? Shouldn’t you be trying to get away from ‘words’ and be moving toward authenticity or something?
Very few on this blog are emergent. Most here believe in propositional truth. For me, I find Warren simplistic and PDL shallow. I read McLaren’s “Generous Orthodoxy” and found it to contain some great questions and some very bad teaching. I get tired of McManus’s self esteem sermons. I just don’t think we need to attack everything with pitchforks and torches.
How about Martino?
He attends Rob Bells church doesn’t he? But Rob denies Sola Scriptura. But Martino quotes the Bible as if it were authoratitive.
I don’t get that?
“Emergents don’t debate propositional truth claims.”
Where on earth did you hear this? I’ve not heard anyone who is considered “Emergent” say that there isn’t such thing as propositional truth. I’ve read most of the “controversial” Emergent books, and have never seen anyone try to make this claim (a self-contradictory claim at that). It’s simply another straw man.
Also, I don’t think most of the writers and commenters here would consider themselves “Emergent”.
Anyway, this has nothing to do with the original post, so sorry for the tangent Chris.
Ah taking me out of context again, but hey you do it to the scriptures, so do it to everyone you don’t agree with.
Is there a cure for aids? Do you think Jesus came so WE can cure every disease, end world hunger, and poverty, and stop all wars? He prophecied of things getting worse. Matthew 24.
The gay agenda wants a cure for aids so that they can engage in their cesspool lifestyle without consequence. I told Todd in an email that the blood of the innocents who contracted aids through no fault of their own, is on the heads of the druggies, and the sexually promiscuous, whether gay or straight who propagate this plague. Yes, medicine should do all it can for all who suffer from any disease. Yes, we should do all we can to bring comfort. However we live in a world where there is a new disease being discovered daily. It is the height of arrogance to think that WE will solve it all. Come Lord Jesus!
The Lord’s first desire is that He be glorified, and pre-eminent in all things.
The good works we do must be in obedience to Him, i.e. his good works born in the faith, Eph 2:8-10,James 2, and Matthew 5:13-20.
The Bible is for believers. It is God’s revealed will to those who are regenerate, as the unregenerate could care less about the Lord and His Word. The body performing the commanded good works of God, glorifies Him. That is why Jesus said let your light shine before men, so that your good works will be seen, so that THEY MAY GLORIFY THE FATHER..
Is Ms. Jolie glorifying God? Does she care? Is Ingrid oppressing the poor or even suggesting that we should? Judge with righteous judgment. Angelina or Brad will not be saved by Mrs. Warren’s befriending of them. They will be saved when the Word is proclaimed bringing the faith to believe, and that faith not of themselves, so that they cannot say that they saved themselves by their own good works. Then it will be evident that they are God’s workmanship in Christ, to do the foreknown good Works of God.
This is God’s grace and this honors God.
The Warrens, Brangelina, and all the other celebrity do-gooders bring glory to themselves not the Father. This is all a show, and the poor and suffering are being used.
2 Cor 6:
14Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?
BTW,your eIsegesis stinks.
I will also say again that all who are not in the second Adam that is Jesus Christ, are dead in the first Adam and therefore do not show forth the image of God. The dead show forth nothing. He is not the god of the dead but of the living.
Val,
1) None of the writers here consider themselves ‘emergent’.
2) I’ve never rejected that propositional truth claims exist (perhaps you could point out where this has been documented?)…
3) Joe just moved to Grand Rapids and attends Mars Hill (more power to him and them). They don’t reject sola Scriptura – just Ken’s interpretation and mis-representation of their view.
Chris P.
You wrote:
And you would be just as wrong this time as you were the first time, per Genesis 9:6, where God told Noah (LONG after the fall of man):
Or was God wrong, Chris?
Thanks Val, for the trip down memory lane. I haven’t been called “Martino” since college and the army. Oh and you’re right, you are confused.
Blessings to you and yours.
Chris P wrote:
Once again, Chris, you show that, in your omniscience, you know the hearts of men. Why do we need God when we have you?
Me, I’ll take God, though, thank you very much, and let Him decide such things…
Hey Joe, that “you’re confused” statement seemed a little harsh. I don’t recall Val ever being here and I think we all answered her question, except the sola scriptura one.
Val,
Yes, we do attend Rob Bell’s church. In fact, you seem to know so much about it that I gather you must have gone there or still go there. If you still live in the Grand Rapids area let me know I would love to have you over for dinner sometime.
Otherwise I think you read to much gossip.
I’m sorry you feel that way Matt, but he attacked my pastor. Val and I have a bit of history. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Val, my wife makes a mean BBQ Ribs. As long as you promise to not eat all of my daughters (she gets really possessive of her Ribs) we’d love to have you–all joking aside, we’d love for you to come eat with us.
Matt,
How was saying he is a little confused harsh? He is confused! He is saying we moved our family to a church that is not bible based. He has not be confused on his facts. Val might be new to this site but if it is the same Val from Extreme we have had many conversations with him. Otherwise how we he know what my family is doing?
Since propositional truth is not denied here, then I’ll sahre a bit for you. Guess we’ll have to scrap the above lie. I don’t even know who Val is. They came to their opinion on their own, so therefore it’s NOT just “Ken’s” interpretation.
Hey Matt, one more thing, would you say Val was mean harsh to himself? He said,
I was just agreeing with the man or woman.
Ken,
Do you deny that Val might read your public blog? You write article after article slamming Bell. You right, he might not have gone is opinion from you but it is certaintly possiable. Ken, I am being very serious here, if you have never been to Mars Hill and would like to find out for yourself if what you are saying in other rants about Rob Bell is true, you are more than welcomened to come stay at my house and go to church with us. I will even make lunch for you!:-)
Ken, I’ll even come get you at the airport. It would only cost you the cost of getting out here.
Joe and Erica,
That is most kind. We’ll see. I’m not adverse to it.
Ok, well if you seriously want to come out, you should still have my email.
Ken,
You wrote:
No lie here. Val’s wording comes right from your article of a similar title, so it isn’t stretching to assume that this lie about Rob Bell isn’t being parroted from your site.
As for “Val”, when she posted here months ago, she claimed to be a friend of Ingrid’s son – SO – It’s definitely not a stretch to think you & Ingrid have poisoned her…
Phil, you bring up a good point about a pastor’s finite ability to keep track of all of His sheep. I would suspect that Rick Warren should be somewhat less public about the more famous or wealthy members he has attending or that he is attempting to share Christ with.
None of us know what Warren knew or now what he is doing to help Mr. Murdoch find repentance, but I’m sure that this publicity could be used of the devil to demonstrate to a new believer (Murdoch) how Christians can energetically find sin in people’s lives and rush to expose it to the entire world, lost and saved.
Love covers (not condones) a multitude of sins. I pray that if Murdoch is a believer that he does repent and divest himself of all filth, but I also pray he will not be destroyed by the public attacks that he probably doesn’t fully understand yet.
Babies sometimes make a mess but a mother’s heart will cause her to change his diaper not call the neighbors to report it.
By the way, let us pray for both of them because it is Christ’s name that gets dragged around by the behavior on many sides. I would desire to see Murdoch repent and publicly communicate his decision which could be used of God to reach others. But he doesn’t have that power in himself, only the Spirit can give him that strength.
Well now, the comment outlines – “Val’s wording comes right from your article of a similar title, so it isn’t stretching to assume that this lie about Rob Bell isn’t being parroted from your site.”
And…”she claimed to be a friend of Ingrid’s son – SO – It’s definitely not a stretch to think you & Ingrid have poisoned her…”
Ah-vah, I’m telling on Chris L…why this a classic example of guilt by association…
Hi Joe-
I didn’t know of your previous encounters with Val. Sorry if I offended. I thought they were a new commenter.
Sorry, Joe.
Ken,
You are more the welcome to come to our house and try our church. I could cook you a good Italin meal! Bring your wife of course!
The comment about Val being confused may have been true – but I think using it at the end of a post without showing/correcting the confusion is what looked harsh. But it looks like the “confusion” has been addressed.
As for Bell and Sola Scriptura – all you need do is read the whole pericope in which he talks about it, and the problem goes away.
As for Imago Dei – that all humans possess (though they may not reflect) the image of God is biblically obvious – not to mention the logical conclusions as well.
Neil
Using Ingrid’s logic here then most Christian’s should not get up tomorrow morning and get ready to go to work if they work with non-Christians… and that is the logical flaw of the “separatist” ideals… they do not see that they are heaping guilt on people who have everyday jobs and work with non Christians…
So, if Ken has a person in his house church that works with non Christians he then should not take their “tithe”… nor if Ingrid received support from someone who works at a day job with non Christians take their support… yet I guarantee neither would not take their money…
Blessings,
iggy
Wow. iggy declares himself god!
You are so cute Ken… so you would turn down money from someone who works at a “secular” job? I never claimed to be god… I just guarantee that if someone sent you money, you would take it…
I don’t need to be god to see know the answer…
Be Blessed,
iggy
I was just thinking how I work for a company that some have said gets 50% of it’s profits from the porn industry. We make software and hardware for video editing. 90% of all movies and television use our stuff. So does the porn industry. If I sent a check to Ken or Ingrid, would they cash it?
Matt,
You be sure and send one and we’ll see. :-0
Joe and the gang,
I think ya’ll are too sensitive about hurting my feelings. I thought Joe’s comment about me being confused was hilarious!
Who knows I might be.
One thing I am not is disciple of Ken Silva. I’ve read of few of his posts on his site. But I like to do my own thang.
I can’t say I’ve been to mars hill. This article in beliefnet.com was the the thing that made me think that Bell is off on sola scriptura.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/173/story_17301_2.html
anyone care to unconfuse me about what Bell said in this article.
Val,
Tell you what – I’ll answer your questions when you explain how your IP address is identical to Chris R’s…
Actually, I think I’ll answer now, since I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for an explanation how you so ‘coincidentally’ share the same IP as a CR?N writer.
Conveniently, you’ve referenced the article Ken always references in his hit-piece lies on Rob and Sola Scriptura. Coincidences aside, here you go (pulling from some commentary we’ve already provided on the issue, had you bothered to search):
In one of the sermons from which Velvet Elvis was developed in 2004, Bell used the example of Paul’s comments about women covering their heads and not wearing braided hair. He said that we first had to see what this meant in the time it was written (basically – “women – don’t dress the way prostitutes do – you’re not a prostitute!â€). Next, we had to look and see how we would apply this now, in Grand Rapids 2004. He mentioned the name of a brand or a store I didn’t know, but his jist was that women shouldn’t dress in ways that say they are sexually available to other people.
Sola Scriptura means that the Bible is the final source of our doctrine and the practices that come from it. No where that I have seen, does Bell deny this – in fact he’s clear regarding the authority of the Scriptures. What Bell does argue for is a careful use of the Scriptures, and usage in context to the original meaning of the author.
Chris,
What Bell does argue for is a careful use of the Scriptures, and usage in context to the original meaning of the author.
Then was his “Peter walking on the water” – (the one we had a long discussion about) sermon an exception?
Erica,
How about one or two of your favorite Italian recipes to lighten the mood around here?
And I don’t mind “some of this” and “a pinch of that” in recipes. I hate measuring.
I have fresh herbs – rosemary, thyme, oregano, parsley, and hopefully soon, basil, growing in my garden . . .
Amy,
No, it wasn’t an exception. I take it you’ve not listened to the RVL podcasts I posted on the subject. I stand by that interpretation as being the likely original intent of the author. NOTHING in that scripture implies that Peter doubted Jesus’ ability to perform miracles, and – in fact – in asking Jesus to save him, it showed that he DID believe in Jesus miraculous power over the elements.
Erica,
.
Guess I should have put the recipe request under the “Dine With . . . ” article – a bit more on topic
Amy,
I love sharing recipes! If you seriously want some I will e-mail them to you. My mother in law taught me how to cook Italian. There is no measuring it is a touch of this and dash of that:-)
Erica,
I would like some, but could you perhaps share one here? I don’t usually do personal e-mails – a general policy I have regarding most internet acquaintances.
I’d be happy to explain. I am a good friend of Chris Rosebrough’s. When I am in California I help him with one of his businesses.
I was in town and he was out of the office today meeting with clients and doing radio interviews. He loves you guys so much that he asked me to poke in on your site as a favor. I guess he doesn’t like you guys to get lonely or something.
I was using one of the computers at his office in San Clemente. He told me that some of you blokes are emergent. But I didn’t get all my facts straight. That is why Martino was right when he said I was confused. I’m still getting up to speed about who is who on this blog.
Val,
I don’t think any of the writers here would consider themselves emergent. Many would call themselves emerging. I am sure you are privy on the difference between the two.
Nathan,
In all honesty I don’t know what the differences are. I love for you to tell me.
We have posted a story on it… but it is way back. Basically “emergent” is somewhat of a denomination. Many (not all) in the emergent camp have denounced absolute truth. We are obviously against it.
“emerging” is referring to the modern church movement that holds to historical orthodox Christianity, but is experimenting with new methods. Basically we hold to what the scripture says, not man made institutions.
simply but…
emergent = we need to change the MESSAGE and the METHOD to reach the world (bad)
emerging = we need to change the METHODS to reach the world but the message is timeless (good)
Val,
Nathan likes to “create” the future with Erwin McManus and shows he knows little of the past. Here’s the truth: Leadership Network got Doug Pagitt to get 10 people from Youth Leaders Network and other youth ministers and youth pastors for the Terranova Project to form what becomes known as “the emerging church movement” Shortly McLaren gets grafted in to kind of oversee the younger guys.
About a year and half later LN sets them out on their own and that group morphs into what is now Emergent Village while the emerging church movement continues on. The point is that the emerging church movement has its roots in that TP. Those guys were by and large semi-pelagian neo-orthodox new evangelicals which mean the root of both the emerging and Emergent church have a rotten root.
Even now both remain hostile to the doctrines of grace and have contemplative spirituality as a core doctrine. Neither is a genuine move of God yet both see themselves as bringing about a new reformation.
wow… that was a nice spin on it all. I like how Ken attacks emergent for their rejection of reformed theology (always robed in the verbiage of “doctrines of Grace”). That’s basically the core here… we are reformed and you are not.
You see Ken, I believe that it is by Grace alone that I am saved… and I am emerging. How does that work out?
It doesn’t.
I’ll take that Ken. You may remember me as a commenter on the old Slice of Laodicea site. I identify with the emerging movement, and I’m pretty strongly in line with the reformers (especially Luther) theologically.
In the tradition of how you used to respond to me at Slice (for the 48 hours that I was allowed to post there) you’ve written off those of us who make up the core of the emerging movement by adressing the heretical ideas arising in the far left. You’re not talking to or about us, you’re talking to a group of people with whom I don’t even associate.
Please, explain how “it doesn’t” work. You may have seen this article, but if not you should read it. It is one of the best summations of both the emerging “conversation” and the Emergent church. You may find it enlightening, since you repeatedly seem to misunderstand the core of the movement.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/february/11.35.html
Val,
I rread the article you linked to, and I assume this is the part you’re referring to:
“Indeed, Bell urges readers to test his own text. The Bible itself, he writes, is a book that constantly must be wrestled with and re-interpreted. He dismisses claims that “Scripture alone” will answer all questions. Bible interpretation is colored by historical context, the reader’s bias and current realities, he says. The more you study the Bible, the more questions it raises.”
Particularly, the part where it says he “dismissed claims”. I don’t think what he’s talking about is anything new. The Bible has always been interpreted under different lenses, and Christians through the ages have come to different conclusions. Some of them have been dead wrong, and some of them have stood the test of time.
We cannot take a portion of Scripture and have it floating with no historical and cultural context and really expect to get the full meaning of it. Now, I believe the Holy Spirit can reveal truth through even the most horrible of exegesis, but I don’t think that should be our goal. We need to study the Scriptures in their entirety, against the culturall backdrop they were written in to really see them in their fullness. If you’ve ever heard Bell preach, this is what his goal is.
Also, I will add this. It is possible for one “know” the Scriptures back and forth, but really not know the power pf them. The pharisees knew the Scriptures, but were blind to the reality they were pointing to. Why was that? I believe it is because they had replaced their faith in God with a faith in religion, ritual, and tradition. I believe it possible for us to experience the same type of blindness, and that we must always approach the Scripture with humility and an expectation that we might be wrong about some stuff.
Nathan and the gang,
Thank you for the clarification of your positions. I’m travelling back to the East Coast this afternoon so my ability to chat is limited.
Nathan – It sounds to me like ‘Emerging’ is just a new term for what Rick Warren pioneered in with his Seeker Targeted church models.
Are there any significant ways that you are different in your approach than Warren?
Phil – Thank you for taking the time to clarify Bell’s position. Do you think that Bell holds to a Historical Gramatical hermaneutic or does he buy into Bultman’s Historical Critical Method.
I think Bell is a Fuller Grad and they drill ‘Historical Critical’ into everyone’s head there. That is a very liberal seminary.
Maybe Martino can ask him about that. I think it would be really good to know where he stands regarding those two differerent methods for interpreting the Bible.
I’m glad to see that you guys are trying to provide a well reasoned defense of your positions and also happy to see that you believe the Bible is God’s word.
I’ll check back in when I get to Dallas. I have a 2 hour lay over.
Nah Spencer, I’m afraid you have confused me for McKnight.
Val,
I hope you have a good flight.
Actually, Bell is a Wheaton grad. I don’t think he has any connection to Fuller other than he has spoken there a few times I believe. I am not educated enough myself personally to say what hermaneutic he subscribes to. I’ll have to look into that.
phil,
Bell got his M Div from Fuller. His primary hermeneutic is historical-contextual (not historical-critical), though he also has given examples recently of “first use” principal and historical-grammatical hermeneutics.
Val, when you get back to the east coast, can you let me know why your IP address (the one you used before yesterday) is the same node as Ingrid’s?
MANY examples is more like it. Bell is also contemplative and neo-orthodox in his approach to Scripture as well.
Please, Ken – give your lies a rest. Your “contemplative/neo-orthodox” has been proven false so many times, it’s a wonder you still trot it out…
O please Chris L., you are so full of yourself. You have proven nothing except you seem to love hearing yourself talk. So you know more about Bell’s pitiful theology than I do? Hardly.
Ken-
Tozer was a contemplative. Why do you keep using him on CRN?
Matt,
Hmm, I had better go meditate on that, huh.
Chris,
I didn’t realize that, or maybe I heard it and forgot it. Thanks for setting me straight.
Ken,
At least realize you attack others yet play the hypocrite every time you quote Tozer…
If you are fine with that and do not care to actually put thought into an answer… then you just keep proving us right in our assessment of you…
Blessings,
iggy
Chris L,
I have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to nodes.
As for Ingrid, I’ve never met her.
I think you’re acting paranoid.
So Ken says all people who are “X” believe “Y” and disbelieve “Z”…
Then someone says, I am “X” and I do not believe “Y” but I do believe “Z”…
To which Ken (instead of acknowledging the error of his first statement) says – “If you say your are “X” but do not believe as I described X – you must not exist.”
Interesting…
Neil
Neil,
You may just want to stick to your A-B-C’s…
Tozer was not a contemplative.
I’ve provided my evidence so please provide yours.
“‘Well,’ Tozer replied, ‘you came by way of the Puritans and I came by way of the mystics.’
In addition, Tozer loved Brother Lawrence, a Catholic and a contemplative.
http://matbathome.blogspot.com/2007/04/tozer-mystic.html
Saying Tozer wasn’t a mystic is like saying C.S. Lewis wasn’t Anglican, Tolkien wasn’t Catholic, Joseph Smith wasn’t a Mormon, and Silva isn’t a Fundamentalist.
Val,
Let’s put it this way… Your posts from Jan 4 – 5 on this thread ( and another one) was from the exact same computer as “Chris” and “Trey”, who posted a few days later. (IP Address 67.53.156.236)
Another computer on the same network at the same physical location (IP Address 67.53.156.230) was utilized by Ingrid 10 days later to post a comment on another thread. AT THAT TIME, I had a few people email me to tell me that “Val”, “Chris”, “Trey” and “Ingrid” were all the same person. I have now had a few people email me the same thing.
SO – acting as if you’re “confused” (as you state above) is, shall we say, disingenuous, when on one day you’re posting from Chris R’s computer, and a few months previous, you were posting from one in the same location as Ingrid.
No paranoia here – just trying to show you’re not an innocent, “confused” person posing questions here…
In addition, CRN writer Mike Ratliff told me that he wouldn’t use Tozer in regards to doctrinal issues, but he agreed with Tozer’s views on apostacy.
“Some of my friends good-humoredly – and some a little bit severely – have called me a ‘mystic.’ Well I’d like to say this about any mysticism I may suppose to have. If an arch-angel from heaven were to come, and were to start giving me, telling me, teaching me, and giving me instruction, I’d ask him for the text. I’d say, ‘Where’s it say that in the Bible? I want to know.’ And I would insist that it was according to the scriptures, because I do not believe in any extra-scriptural teachings, nor any anti-scriptural teachings, or any sub-scriptural teachings. I think we ought to put the emphasis where God puts it, and continue to put it there, and to expound the scriptures, and stay by the scriptures. I wouldn’t – no matter if I saw a light above the light of the sun, I’d keep my mouth shut about it ’til I’d checked with Daniel and Revelation and the rest of the scriptures to see if it had any basis in truth. And if it didn’t, I’d think I’d just eaten something I shouldn’t, and I wouldn’t say anything about it. Because I don’t believe in anything that is unscriptural or that is anti-scripture.” — What Difference Does the Holy Spirit Make?, A. W. Tozer
Tozer cannot be defined as a mystic, as it is portrayed today.
I have more problems with his arminianism than anything else. As for his “prophetic” minstry against apostasy, let’s just say based on the quote above, he would have nothing to do with Warren, McClaren, or any of the mega/seeker/liberal/emerg(ing)ent movements.
And if you’ve reviewed anything I’ve written on this blog, I’d agree with his views that we should be comparing our ideas with Scripture and where Scripture points out our errors, we need to obey Scripture.
But Tozer loved Brother Lawrence and other Catholic mystic/contemplative writers. He believed in “practicing the Presence of God.” Sounds mystical/contemplative to me.
Chris P. said: Tozer was not a contemplative.
And yet, in Ken’s very own words, he admits Tozer was a mystic. From his missive, Emergent Church: Guru Brian McLaren, posted November 18, 2005:
My theology is somewhere a cross between that of C.H. Spurgeon, A.W. Tozer (minus his more mystic bent), and Dr. Walter Martin. (emphasis mine)So which is it? A little leaven leavens the whole lump, after all…
Someone please fix my lack of closing the bold tag… thank you.
Coop,
You can forget being a lawyer. I didn’t say Tozer WAS a mystic, just as Chris P. above knows, Tozer had an interest in mystics. This is NOT the same thing as saying Tozer WAS a mystic. A word to the wise Coop, it would be best for you to mind your own business and not try and put words in my mouth.
It would be wise for you to do the same, Ken. As for putting words into your mouth, it just didn’t happen. You clearly stated that he had “a mystic bent.” The Scriptures say that a little leaven leavens the whole lump (I Corinthians 5:6). What exactly did I put in your mouth?
Coop,
Seriously dude, can’t you read? I just explained it in my comment above.
How can someone have an interest in mystic Roman Catholicism and not be apostate?
Matt,
You don’t wanna go there. Tons of new evangelicals and Emergents have “interests” in tings I’d consider apostate. However, when I criticize it I’m told they are able to read these things and allegedly take the good in it and then leave the bad. I think even Chris L. would tell you the argument you begin to pose will end up a rabbit trail.
Ken,
This is as fine of line to me on Tozer as yours is on “Christian Yoga”… Tozer was or was not… but was influenced by… mystics… so in that much he taught was “mysticism”…
It seems you are having trouble with letting your yes be yes and your no be no… You are a yes but no man on this topic…
Tozer was a mystic because he was influenced and promoted them… to claim otherwise and push his quotes as you do and still condemn others is hypocrisy…
You seem as double minded on this as most else you teach… much of which is false… so that would make you a…._____ ______. And by your gospel we should take you outside of town and stone you. But, alas that pesky grace you deny but I live by tells me to forgive you and pray for you…
You need to study to show yourself approved… cuz so far ya ain’t! (And I am not talking of man’s approval here so put away that pseudo rapier wit of yours… it needs sharpening).
Blessings,
iggy
Oh no, Ken, I do want to go there. That was exactly my point. If Tozer gave us a good example of how to read and apply Catholic theology, can we all?
Chris L.
Val sent me an email and asked me to come to his rescue. He said that you were “seeing things” and that you think I’m a cross-dresser and that I am Ingrid?
Dude, you’re losing it. I assure you that I am neither Ingrid nor Val and I’ve never even heard of Trey.
To prove that I am not Ingrid you may want to listen to last week’s Cross Talk radio program. I appeared on the show with Ingrid.
http://67.36.84.226/crosstalk2/ct070504.mp3
Unless you’re willing to say that Ingrid was ‘interviewing herself’ then you really need to chill out.
Plus, I’ve been commenting on this site for months, as myself. Why on earth would I need to post under an alias?
Val is right. You sound paranoid.
Chris L.
listen mate, your little paranoid witchhunt is very funny but it distracts from the real conversations taking place here on your site.
you boys look like you are trying to catch the boogie man. pull yourselves together and man up.
Val,
A Witch hunt? nope trying to stop Ken from drowning innocent people in his own witch hunt…. so I think you have it turned around a bit…
Blessings,
iggy
Chris R,
Woah!!! Who accused you of being a cross-dresser??? Not to mention, Chris L stated WHY he thought Val and Ingrid are the same person: their IP addresses matched. How that turned into him accusing you of cross dressing is beyond me.
coop,
this is whole thing is getting silly.
Chris L said that “AT THAT TIME, I had a few people email me to tell me that “Valâ€, “Chrisâ€, “Trey†and “Ingrid†were all the same person. ”
i think rosebrough was taking issue with being called ingrid.
as for the cross-dressing thing. that was my fault because I sent him an email this morning asking him if he was a cross-dresser. that probably got his ire up prior to him coming here to defend his manliness.
Val/Chris R,
It is not paranoia. Chris L is just trying to keep you honest, you know- basic discernment using IP addresses which seldom lie. Sometimes this can help a lurker in reading/discerning the comments. because we can’t have people posting under different names and confusing everyone.
I find it strange as well that “Trey” also posted from one of the computers without Chris R knowing who he/she was. I am sure there is a perfectly simple explanation, and the owner of this site has good reasons to ask without being accused of “paranoia”
Val/Chris R -
I am not trying to be paranoid (and I never suggested that “Chris R” was Ingrid). I would completely agree with Robbo’s assessment.
Back in January, there were 3 people who all posted from the same IP Address: 67.53.156.236
“Val”, “Trey” and “Chris” (note – not “Chris R”)
Then, 10 days later, Ingrid posted from IP: 67.53.156.230 – which, from some minor sleuthing, is from the same node in the same physical location as “Val”, “Trey” and “Chris”
I would never have even looked at this, if not for multiple emails at the time telling me that all four were the same person (Ingrid) trying to give a false impression. The data would support this, but it would also support multiple people in her household (or at her son’s house, since “Val” claimed to be her son’s friend) all using the same PC.
Now, 4 months later, “Val” posts from your location (68.5.159.158) on the same day that I receive notices from a couple of folks – different than back in January – suggesting that Val = Ingrid.
____________________
So, why did I check? Because “Val” tried to pass herself off as someone “confused” looking for information, and not someone pushing an agenda, while others were telling me she was an alias for Ingrid. The data didn’t prove their suggestion, but it proved that Val’s “confusedness” was a sham because – Ingrid or not – all of her postings to that date were from PC’s directly linked to CRN.
No paranoia – just sifting for the truth, and asking questions (rather than pass along direct accusations) to keep everyone honest.
well now it is my turn to defend my manliness.
i am most certainly a man and not a woman. my mother gave me the most regretable name of Valentine Julian Parson. it’s a family name. rest assured i did not pass that one along to any of my children in either my first or second marriage.
i also took a few minutes to look at the posts in question from january and i think you boys have a solid case that ingrid was posting under several aliases back in january.
i don’t know ingrid but those comments fit her writing style.
it would appear that we are dealing with a case of mistaken identity.
i am not ingrid or trey or chris and the val who posted on your site in january was not me.
i know that i am a likeable chap and that many people wish they were me but i am the original.
Chris L,
Thanks for the clarification. I’m releived that I’ve been cleard of all ‘Cross-Dressing’ charges.
Listen though, I think we need to find a better way for all of us to interact with each other.
I think the current tone in these discussions is silly and immature. I don’t think these debates are really moving the Kingdom of God forward.
The whole Val, Ingrid, Trey thing makes me think you guys are chasing Ingrid’s ghost.
We need to stop and ask ourselves what it is that we are really trying to accomplish on our blogs and in these comment boards.
Too much of what is going on is a serious waste of everyone’s time. It looks like a bunch of school kids fighting on the playground.
Because of this, I’m seriously considering a ‘fast’ from commenting on anyone’s site, especially this one.
We all have differnet opinions about the truth and God’s word and people like Rob Bell and Rick Warren. But if we can’t debate the issues without it turning into a bunch of personal attacks, then I don’t think that we’re accomplishing anything.
Quite frankly, I have better things I should be doing with my time and if you are honest with yourself then you’d have to agree that same is true for you.
Thanks for clearing that up, Val (and sorry about the mis-ID of your gender)…
CHris
Can I call you Parson?
Valentine is a rather cool name if i might say…
though I confess I though you of the other gender… yet still took what you stated as an equal and not a “weaker” vessel….
LOL!
blessings,
martino,
you can call me parson.
i did some research on rob bell and stumbled on this
http://www.theopedia.com/Rob_Bell
and this
http://www.brianmclaren.net/archives/000271.html
both pieces make it sound like bell’s working with sub-par concept of god’s word and its authority.
also, mclaren is an very dangerous man. i’d be careful with anyone that mclaren likes.
Val,
emergents have a high Christology which places Jesus as THE AUTHORITY then comes the written word… this does not lower the words authority but raises Christ to His true place that the Bible teaches…
Jesus stated in John 5 that the Pharisees searched the scriptures for eternal life… and could not find it… it is there all over the place… yet Jesus then stated that eternal life can only come through Him… later he “opened the eyes” of the disciples so that they could see Jesus in the scriptures… which was only the OT at that time…
So we place Christ above all things… even the written word as He has fulfilled it and sits on the throne…
And then we are attacked as to that we do not believe in the authority of the scripture…
I think that too many have too low of Christology to understand all that Christ has truly done.
Blessings,
iggy
iggy you should try growing up with a name like Valentine. every bully within 50 kilometers wanted to take a crack at whipping the boy with the sissy name.
growing up my friends called me vj or veej.
Val,
Could you quote something specific in either of those articles that concerns you?
What makes you think McClaren is “dangerous”. He might not be correct in all he thinks, but how is he dangerous? I’m actually quite thankful for him, it was through him that I started reading some stuff I never would of found on my own, Stan Grentz and Dallas Willard, off the top of my head.
Oh, Val…
McLaren is not that dangerous if you understand his writing style and that when read closely he never tells one to believe the question he is exploring… in fact if one really does research they will find that he does believe in much that many claims he does not and he does not hold to what many claim he does… but that takes real discernment to understand and actual time to listen to sermons (not with the intention to find wrong but to actually listen and hear and understand) but it is easier to cut and paste or take a sentence out to a whole chapter and twist it to mean the opposite he actually stated… i have seen this so many times and have even pointed it out… and that is what is happening to Rob Bell and others…
It is like the argument around the “Blood of Jesus” with John Mac… for the most part it is so stupid and many twist Johnny Mac’s words… yet at least with Johnny Mac the danger is in how he interprets “fruit”….
Blessings,
iggy
iggy i appreciate that idea.
i guess i’d be careful about how that plays out. truth is we can’t know anything about Christ without his word. there are no other places we can turn to that speak authoratatively about Jesus.
i think the other thing to remember is that the term sola scriptura was coined in the heat of the reformation battles. the reformers used that term to set themselves apart from the catholics who believed that the pope and church tradition were also doctrinally authoratative. that’s how rome could defend their peculiar teachings about mary, monastaries and saints.
sola scriptura is also handy when dealing with those silly souls who think that everytime they get goose shivers that they are receiving communication from on high.
i guess what i’m getting at is this idea that scripture alone is the gold standard by which we judge whether someone is speaking truth about God or if they should be locked up and sued for spiritual malpractice.
in my experience those who attack sola scriptura do so because they want to hold to ideas and doctrines that are either missing from the bible or contradict the bible. by attacking sola sciptura they open the door to teach strange doctrines. it’s the same whether they are popes, self-proclaimed prophets or spiritual gurus. they all claim that they are receiving direct communication from god’s throne via the holy spirit.
it is best if we avoid those folks. they are into spiritual mischief and are up to no good.
Val,
Though if you do a study on what sola scriptura meant then and what it means now… there is a bit of difference.
What I have seen is that there has been a lot said about the bible that the Bible itself never says… and that may not be a good place to venture either…
The definitions have been changed a bit… I choose to say “authoritative” and not use other words that seem packed with so many different definitions… even authoritative is tainted yet I define it as “being God’s written word we can trust it” I see though without Christ Jesus the Bible has not authority in and of itself… (that will be taken wrongly of course just watch) for if something is to be authoritative… it has to come from something of authority… and Jesus is that Authority.
Blessings,
iggy
phil,
i have read two of mclaren’s books the new kind of christian and a generous orthodoxy. the man is quite simply a heretic.
i wouldn’t bet a twenty at vegas that you will see him in heaven.
his ideas are designed to shake people loose of their doctrinal certainties. most disturbing are his views which attack the substitutionary attonement.
you would do much better by reading the reformers or the early church fathers.
Val,
You are coming from the perspective of using “Sola Scriptura” to defend the Church from false doctrines and teachings, which is fine and the way it was meant to be applied.
What Bell and others are doing, in my perspective, is not arguing against that. They are standing up against the abusive use of the concept throughout the years. We have all seen it. Someone will say something completely ridiculous, find a verse in the Bible which taken completely out of context seems to support that idea, and claim that they are right because “it’s in the Bible, and it’s God’s Word”. How many people have been hurt and turned against God because of this type of stuff. A lot. That’s who Bell is talking to.
Oh, and Val,
It is a bit funny that you say to avoid these folks… I see that if we did that, Luther, Calvin, Arminus, and on and on would have needed to be avoided also. It seems that for real change to take place some mischievousness must also go with it.
Now, there are some i agree we should avoid… I see Borg as dangerous as Johnny Mac… so I hope you can see I am not entirely bias to one side being entirely “right”.
Blessings,
iggy
iggy
don’t tell rosebrough i said this but, he talks a lot like you do about christ being our authority and that the whoooooole bible is written about Jesus.
i get the point. on one level i actually agree with it.
Val,
Re: McLaren.
I’ve read the whole New Kind of Christian Trilogy, Generous Orthodoxy, and a bunch of his others. I would not call him a heretic. He does not deny substitutionary atonement, he just states it is not the whole of the Gospel. It isn’t. You could say it’s at the heart, but the Gospel is a multi-faceted diamond.
Anyway, I’m not about taking bets on who is going to be in heaven. I’d probably end up losing too much money.
I also would say Borg is dangerous, for what it’s worth.
phil,
i am afraid that i have not yet read velvet elvis. the title seems so silly.
but, even if what you are saying is correct about bell and others then technically speaking sola scriptura woud still be the correct way of dealing with those rotters who are misapplying bible passages to impose their own religious agendas within the church.
sola scriptura doesn’t give one license to willy-nilly pick and choose what the bible says without any eye for sound hermaneutics and exegesis. sola scriptura demands that we interpret the bible in light of good grammar, vocabulary and its historical context. luther’s bondage of the will has a great treatment of this subject.
Val,
Be careful as I am a “not saved/other gospel believing/emergent heretic/ pagan pushing apostate/ who hates the truth/ and one denies the Bible” …. or I have been told by some of Rosebrough’s friends…
But I don’t listen to them as i know Who dwells in my heart.
blessings,
iggy
Val,
this is the battle isn’t it… that I see that those who teach systematic theology pick and choose to fit their doctrine… and they view people like me as picking and choosing when we speak of the whole of context from scripture and history.
It seems that if one has a sovereign God, that God would not fit into man’s finite understandings of a system otherwise that God become subject to that system… then He is no longer sovereign…
Yet, time and time I point out that what the bible actually states and am told i am wrong and that I need to learn systematic theology…
I looked at it a bit and then a scripture and decided scripture to be truer… I guess one can fault me for believing scripture as to what it says over what someone thinks they think it says…
Blessings,
]iggy
i’m not trying to be rude by dashing away but i have an appointment with a local stream and my fishing pole that I must not be late to.
I will check back in a day or so.
iggy before i put my waders on let me say this, many have attempted to systematically organize the doctrines of the bible. the bible is living and active but it is also a book that uses human words to convey spiritual truth. if you look at what this book is telling us we find that the Lord’s apostles did battle with people who were teaching false doctrines about Jesus and salvation. the epistles to the galatians and the colosians were both written against heresy. jude was written to tell us to contend for the faith and peter warns us about those who twists pauls words like they do the other scriptures.
theological systems and doctrinal summaries are designed to be like ‘biblical truth’ for dummies books. they can never replace the bible text but they are only as good as their faithful interpretation of the text. some sytems are better than others. attacking systmatic theology sounds like lazy scholarship to me.
with that thought i’m off to enjoy the great out doors. i recommend all you do the same.
Val,
I agree with what you are saying, but how many people know that besides us eggheads arguing on Christian blogs. We have to remember that Bell isn’t talking to us, necessarily. He’s talking to people who probably have a very wrong misperception of what a Christian is and what we believe. Also, there’s a good chance that person has been hurt by a Christian before. Those are real issues, and I don’t think that it is wrong to address them.
Val,
Just to clear up any confusion, my last post was still in reference to the whole “sola scriptura” thing.
Have fun fishing, man!
Ahhhh Val,
I was just thinking in the same stream!
Blessings,
iggy!