Sometimes, if you skip the logical progress in your gearbox, that is 5th to 4th to 3rd… if you try and drop from 5th to 2nd you’ll grind your gears.  It’s not a good idea, it’s hard on your transmission. If we employ this metaphor to a recent post at Slice – if we dropped gears as abruptly and out of sync as the logic in this post, we’d be leaving pieces of our transmission all over the road.

The subject is a video from GetSelfCentered.  The video is pretty self explanatory and visiting the website gives more of the same New Age looking rhetoric (As a side not it’s interesting to note  “the worlds” use of cliché’s and drivel as well).  Clearly this is something that looks completely non-Christian.

Then the swipe, the illogical leap, the grinding of gears and shredding of parts… her application: “Meditation is the common link to the New Spirituality —from Rob Bell’s church to all of the world religions.”

Meditation is as biblical as prayer, fasting, or worship.  Yet, because other religions use it we are now forbidden from doing the same.  Because the “New Spirituality” employs meditation, Christians who do so are somehow linked to them.

Muslims pray, therefore, employing this logic we should not; lest we find ourselves linked in a common practice.

Judging from what I’ve read about the Shepherd’s Conference this year the theme seems to be “Contextualization is evil, and if you do it Satan has probably set up an outlying fortress in your heart, mind and kidneys”. Michael Spencer provides an extremely balanced response to this attitude, and does it rather gently, especially considering the vitriol with which he’s been treater by McArthur’s acolytes.

Its well worth reading the whole thing, but here’s some highlights:

Dr. Macarthur is, just like me, part of a culture and he can’t deny it. His suit, and the meaning of his suit, is a perfect example. His statement that the suit shows he’s serious is a cultural value of middle to upper class white Americans. It’s not a value of Jesus and Jesus didn’t teach or endorse it. The meaning of that suit demonstrates that Dr. Macarthur is comfortable with an aspect of culture that he’s grown up with and into. He relates it to his faith, but it’s a decision he’s making about context. It doesn’t mean I’m not serious or that Mark Driscoll or his congregation aren’t serious.

Here in Eastern Kentucky, that suits communicates a lot more than seriousness. It communicates “he has money.” That suit keeps all kinds of men from ever entering a church. Probably less than 3% of the men in my county have ever had on a tie, much less a suit. Where do I stop them and say it’s Biblical and “serious” to wear a suit? It would be completely OUTSIDE of the Gospel for me to do so.

That’s not a condemnation of Dr. Macarthur’s suit. It’s simply what I’ve learned from my own awareness of cultural context, and it’s why I can say “Jesus doesn’t need you to wear a suit to be a serious Christian.”

At the end of the day, these comments seem to reflect the turn of the century, fundamentalist, separationist Baptist roots so many of us grew up in; a tradition that was highly reluctant to see and admit its own distinct culture; a culture that could have dress codes, rules, traditions and meanings, yet simply said they were being “Biblical.” A tradition that condemned many good things and still does in maintenance of its loyalty to itself. A culture that resents the fact that a newer generation of serious, Biblical evangelicals aren’t making the same choices about church and culture.

It is the recovery of a more consistent concern for being thoroughly Biblical that is causing the Kellers and the Driscolls to depart from the approach that tells itself it has leapfrogged culture. No one has, but without the admission of our own cultural settings and an awareness of the hazards and opportunities of working in a multi-cultural Kingdom for a King who is determined to get glory from all cultures, some will continue to promote a completely unneeded hostile pose toward people doing good missional thinking, church planting and evangelism.

This quote was posted at CRN from Kay Warren

By her own admission, Kay Warren says, five years ago she didn’t know anything about AIDS. Then she saw a magazine article about how the disease had left 12 million orphans in Africa.

‘I didn’t care about AIDS in Africa. I thought it was a gay man’s disease, so in the theology I had at the time, I didn’t have to care. I didn’t know anyone who had AIDS. I had a heart that was very hard, apathetic and very wrong,’ said Warren

CRN responds with this one line

Well, she must have learned that rotten and unscriptural “theology” from her her husband because they sure didn’t get it from the BIble.

Very revealing of their theology at CRN. It is considered “rotten and unscriptural” to actually care about those who have AIDS. I mean, isn’t that all Kay mentions here? Before she used to think AIDS was a “gay man’s disease” and so she didn’t have to care about these people. But, now that she actually cares for the broken, the widowed, the sick, the hungry and the naked, her theology is rotten. These people have obviously become more enamored with their fights against Warren than understanding biblical truths. Simply amazing.

**UPDATE**

Upon re-reading the article, I realized that I probably did get the message mixed up.  I apologize for any harm done.  I am still confused though.  Rick Warren has not changed his theology in the last 5 years.  Why would he then be responsible for his wife’s theology 5 years ago, but not be now?  You can’t say he was responsible for the bad, but is not now responsible for the good.

So, I guess the editor is implying that Rick Warren’s theology has now changed for the better?  I’ll take that.

From here:

I remember going to a worship service, one of the most powerful services I’ve ever attended. There were thousands of Christians from all over the Middle East gathered just before Easter. We sang “Amazing Grace” in Arabic. We said the Lord’s Prayer together in all kinds of different tongues. Then the bishops read a statement addressed to Muslims, which read: “We believe that you are created in the image of God and we love you.” It was pregnant with hope. Afterward I confessed to one of the bishops that I was surprised to see so many Christians in Iraq. He looked at me blankly and said gently, “Yes, my friend. This is where Christianity began. You did not invent it in America. You have only domesticated it. Go back and tell the church in America that we are praying for them … to be the body of Christ, to embody the gospel of Jesus.” His words still echo in my soul.

May we remember this Easter season — that it may be Friday, but Sunday is coming. Death may be all around us, but in the end resurrection triumphs. Another little one clinging to Jesus.

If that’s heresy, then sign me up.

“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

Jesus as Rabbi:
Part 1: What is a Rabbi?
Part 2: Was Jesus a Rabbi?
Part 3: Jesus’ Miracles
Part 4: Jesus and other Rabbis
Part 5: Jesus and the Pharisees
Part 6: Bringing up Disciples

In this set of articles in this series, we are exploring the relationship between the rabbi and his disciples. In this article we will examine the key characteristic which distinguishes one authoritative (s’mikah) rabbi from another, that is, his yoke.

In Judiasm, there are 613 commands, mitzvot, given by God in the Torah. As a result of the variety of real life, there were often times where one or more of these commands might come into apparent conflict with other commands.

For instance, on the Sabbath, which was required to be kept holy, what if an animal fell into a pit? Getting it out would require work (violating Sabbath), but to leave it in the pit would be cruel (in violation of the commands against cruelty to animals). In such a case, which was the greater (heavier) command and which was the lesser (lighter) command?

The yoke of a rabbi would help his talmidim to determine how to interpret Torah correctly, so as to best hear and obey God in everyday situations where one command/principal might conflict with another.

Read the rest of this entry »

For someone who complains about churches being man-centered, this rant certainly seems like it’s putting the author’s wants and needs first and foremost in the selection of a church.

Maybe this is why they get so ticked off when Rick Warren says it’s not about them…

This week we bring on the guys from Verum Serum and talk about the Christ follower’s role in politics, as well as the role of the church in politics.

You can download it here or listen to it below.

If you’d like to contact us about the podcast you can email me.

Click here to subscribe to the podcast in Itunes.

Here’s the feed for every other podcast client

Also if you’d like to help us out you can vote for our podcast.

 

 Politics.: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Missio Dei Suburbia has some great questions concerning John MacArthur’s stance on contextualization. Go read the whole thing, its tough to just quote a section of it.

A response to MacArthur’s silliness.

Update:
The BHT boys keep knocking it out of the park.

It also seems to me that the best example of de-contextualised, one-size-fits-all Christianity was Roman Catholicism between Trent and Vatican II. One Latin Mass to rule them all, and all that.

Here’s an idea. Let’s go back through historical church eras and glean from such time periods those issues deemed to be of value in the development of the Christian faith. Let’s review the first-century church, the church between A.D. 100 and 600, then consider the medieval era (A.D. 700 to 1500), followed by the Reformation period (A.D. 1500 and later), and so on. To be effective in this endeavor, it’s important to have a good understanding of the cultural context in which the Christians of each era practiced their faith – T. A. McMahon

It started with such promise, a suggestion to study history and glean what is of value.  McMahon even proposes making sure we understand the cultural context so the gleaning can be more accurate.  Here’s an idea… and it’s a good one: Learn from the past.

But then, after a brief history of the recent upsurge in interest in the ancient church, the article takes an unfortunate but certainly predestined twist.  Apparently learning from the past is not a good idea.

First to be assaulted is Richard Foster who “wrote Celebration of Discipline. His book, which introduced Catholic and occult meditative techniques to evangelicals” – problem #1… gba assertions without foundation or support.  Just what did/does Foster promote that is of the occult?  And techniques must be bad if they were used by Catholics?

Problem #2 follows shortly thereafter… false dichotomies.

Let’s both reason from the Scriptures, and simply be reasonable (Isaiah 1:18). The Ancient-Future search to discover gems from “Classic Christianity” comes up short by a century — the century in which the New Testament was written. The critical difference should be obvious. The writers of the New Testament were inspired by the Holy Spirit as they penned God’s Word (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21, 22). What writings from A.D. 100 and later can claim such inspiration? None

McMahon is right, there is a critical difference between the inspired writings of the Apostles and those who followed.  Problem is, no one is saying that the Church Fathers are on par with the Apostles.  I pondered this a bit trying to decide if it is a straw-man, or a false dichotomy.  I chose the latter since McMahon argues against a point no one is making.

The bulk of the rest of the article is a series of mostly ad hominem attacks against ancient church celebrities.  How did the Gospel ever survive until Luther?

 The summation lies in his final question: “Will this soon pass? No. It’s all part of related agendas that are building the end-times apostate church (Revelation 13:8).” I guess it only goes to show that you will indeed see what you are looking for.

P.S. – I found the McMahon article through Ingrid’s link here - though she fails to give any substantial reasoning, she does a much better job at listing the heretics

Ingrid’s rebuttal to my recent article

Read this piece regarding Mosaic’s Erwin McManus and his views on Christianity and you will understand why Nathan Neighbour from his “Creative Arts” team has such a dim view of his fellow believers—(”hundreds of abortion clinics have been bombed”, he says, and adds that people in Christian glass houses shouldn’t throw stones at Islam). The young man has been discipled by McManus and it clearly shows.

for the record, I have a very high view and even higher hopes for the community of faith called Christianity. I believe that the church and my fellow beleivers are the only hope for the world. I throughly ascribe to Mosaic’s core convictions of

• The local church is God’s agent for redemptive change.
• Every Christian is called and gifted by God to serve the Body and seek the Lost

The difference between Ingrid and I is that I am able to objectively look at our faith history, admit that there have been good and bad times, and still say that we are a dynamic and living force in a lost and dying world. Ingrid believes that even admitting fault means that you have a “dim view” of the people in our faith. That really says alot about the ODMs ability to see and express reality clearly. But when you are going to go out of your way to criticize another faith’s inconsistencies in belief and practice, you better make sure the fingers can’t be pointed right back at you.