“Research” from the ThoughtCrime(TM) Division of Discernmentalism
The current theme in discernmentalism seems to be Guilt-By-Association (GBA), whether they’re rummaging through your CD collection or just repeating GBA lies, (or simply attention whoring) it seems that no leaps in illogic or six-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon smearing are too low to go.
I just got caught up on last week’s ODM ThoughtCrimeTM target: Your bookshelf.
In her article last Friday, Ingrid and Lighthouse Trails “Research” demonstrate how to (attempt to) discredit anyone via GBA fallacy through their bookshelf. To wit:
1) Erwin McManus put together a conference, Awaken 2008, run last week.
2) One of the 23 speakers at the conference was Mark Batterson, who had a 10-minute slot in which to speak about his experience with non-traditional churches. From the conference website:
Mark Batterson serves as lead pastor of National Community Church (www.theaterchurch.com ) in Washington, DC. NCC was recognized as one of the 25 Most Innovative Churches in America by Outreach Magazine in 2007. Focused on reaching emerging generations, 73% of NCCers are single twenty-somethings and 70% come from an unchurched or dechurched background. The vision of NCC is to meet in movie theaters at metro stops throughout the metro DC area. NCC also owns and operates the largest coffeehouse on Capitol Hill. In 2007, Ebenezers was recognized as the #2 coffeehouse in the metro DC area by AOL CityGuide. Mark has two Masters Degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Chicago, Illinois. He is the author of In a Pit with a Lion on a Snowy Day. And he is a daily blogger @ www.markbatterson.com. Mark is married to Lora and they live on Capitol Hill with their three children: Parker, Summer, and Josiah.
3) Batterson maintains a blog. On he, he wrote about his 10-minute presentation:
I decided to speak on one of the greatest dangers we face as leaders. Neurological studies have shown that over the course of time, there is a cognitive shift from right-brain to left-brain. And if we don’t find a way to stop the shift, memory overtakes imagination. We stop creating the future and start repeating the past. We stop innovating and start imitating. We stop doing ministry out of imagination and start doing ministry out of memory.
A few years ago I read something R.T Kendall wrote that impacted me: “The greatest opposition to what God is doing today comes from those who were on the cutting edge of what God was doing yesterday.”
I don’t want that to be me! [Emphasis his]
4) On his blog, Batterson has a reading list, with 8 primary categories, including one on Spirituality and one on Philosophy & Psychology.
5) Of the 128 books on his list, Batterson has a book by Eckhart Tolle (Practicing the Power of Now) in his section on Philosophy & Psychology (not Spirituality, mind you).
6) Therefore, Erwin McManus is promoting Eckhart Tolle – Tada!
While we’re at it, perhaps we should use Batterson’s library to further paint McManus as promoting Judiasm (The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell), Mormonism (The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen Covey), New-Agey Self-Help (Awaken the Giant Within by Anthony Robbins), biased media (The Greatest Generation by Tom Brokaw), Calvinism (Desiring God by John Piper), Emergent (A New Kind of Christian by Brian McLaren), A Capella worship (Just Like Jesus by Max Lucado), Catholocism (The Practice of the Presence of God by Brother Lawrence), Capitalism (How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie), Athiesm/Naturalism (The Universe in a Nutshell by Stephen Hawking)…
It is really sad when Christians find ways to stoop lower than a warring politician flinging mud. GBA Logic this tissue-thin wouldn’t even pass the Clinton red-face test… Whatever happened to not delighting evil, but rejoicing with the truth? But then again, truth doesn’t sell well in talk radio, or bring in more sponsorship revenue for online ‘research’…
![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")
55 Comments(+Add)
I knew there was something fishy about that McManus character
ODMs – Ethics of a carnie, and research skills of a second grader.
(apologies to any carnies and/or second graders who may be reading)
Poetic prose Phil…Poetic!
Oh, snap!
*The research referenced notwithstanding, are we to believe that “New Spirituality” has not made its way into evangelicalism somewhere?
*Is there any new age writer that you have seen get unhealthy acceptance in any form?
*Are there any cautions that are to be adhered to as it pertains to referencing the works of questionable authors?
*Have you observed any uncomfortable meshing of Christianty with other spiritual disciplines and/or practices?
*Is there room for some reasonable discernment about these issues, or are they so miniscule so as to be not worth any concern?
*And if there should be some concern, what issues would you suggest are the most problematic today?
*And if some of these issues are valid (without going into the tone of some ODMs) doesn’t the possibility exist that they can be assimilated with such delicacy that in twenty years they will have gained full fledged acceptance in evangelical Christianity?
Or am I just an alarmist than can be ignored as just another level within all the rest of the ODMs, maybe a little more respectful, but without a clue nonetheless?
Rick,
Do you agree with the conclusion of the article, based on the evidence presented?
Tim – I immediately distanced myself from that research in my first phrase. I guess my question is “Is there any substance as it concerns these issues and if so why are they never identified or even discussed?”.
When there are almost exclusively posts pointing out the error in the ODM’s logic and research, and even if we assume that is completly true, are there any legitimate areas that substantiate those issues or as I said are they so minor that they don’t deserve discussion at this juncture?
Rick,
I guess it’s hard for me to take any of it seriously. I think the ODMs take the stance that if you repeat something long enough, it will eventually be considered correct by some.
I literally have been hearing this same line since the 80’s when I was growing up in church. I remember people warning me about the dangers of “new age” stuff, like crystals and insence, etc. The vast majority of it was a spiritual fad that tricked a few gullible people, but the majority of people saw for what it was – a bunch of BS. Many Christians acted like it was going to usher in the antiChrist.
Do the ODMs really think that most people take Oprah that seriously. Sure there are some, but I think we forget about the scae of things. Even if Oprah has 2 million people in her “church” (to use the ODM’s terminology), there’s 300 million people in the US. I think most people know spiritual BS when they hear it. I can’t think of one non-Christian I know who take Oprah seriously.
Idon’t think responding to every fad that comes down the pike isn’t the church’s mission. This stuff will come and go. I don’t think it’s worth our time to try and find some great conspiracy theory everywhere.
The reality is that when we get down to brass tacks these issues are almost absurdist. You ask broad based questions that seem reasonable. Are they reasonable? Perhaps, but none of the specific incidents we’ve discussed are reasonable.
ME – are there any legitimate areas that substantiate those issues?
PHIL – I don’t think it’s worth our time to try and find some great conspiracy theory everywhere.
I’ll take that as a no.
TIM – The reality is that when we get down to brass tacks these issues are almost absurdist.
I’ll take that as a no.
Rick,
I’m not saying we can’t be informed, or that we shouldn’t have an answer if people ask us about something specifically.
I just feel like the ODM tactic of “ends justifying the means” has really stripped them of any credibility. If you can’t win an argument without lying about your opponent, you don’t have much of a case.
Yup GBA, for sure on McManus.
The only major problem I see here is that Batterson is promoting Tolle. And THAT ain’t good, no matter how you slice it (no pun intended).
The problem with most ODM’s is that they don’t take the time to accurately research. It only takes a few keystrokes to find the truth.
It’s fine to start with a premise and then research to find out the accuracy of that premise. But the ODM’s start with a premise and then find minutia to support their premise. Forest for the trees kinda stuff.
well, and part of it, too, is that there’s a huge difference between Oprah saying “this is a great book and i think you ought to read it!” (as with her book club) and *cue scary voice* “deny Chriiiiiiiiiiist!” (which she really doesn’t say anyway.)
the phrase “grow up” comes to mind every time i see something like this…
Before you go blowing off Oprah’s influence, check this out.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JW4LLwkgmqA&feature=bz303
This is actual footage of her. It is frightening, and I do know people who will gradually be influence by her relativism.
And, realize that her sphere of influence tends toward the women, so look there before you talk to your male buddies.
seen it a gazillion times on reactionary websites.
it’s an old clip.
i mean, um, you can tell by her wigs.
anyway.
again, whatever. it’s her religious beliefs, and that’s fine.
it’s still an intense overreaction to conflate her book club or Favorite thing recommendations with her spiritual beliefs.
Well, I interact with quite a few women regularly as well, and I don’t think any of them take her seriously. I know there are some women that are rabid followers, and I guess pretty gullible. Women like that should probably avoid all media if they’re that suggestable.
The thing is, it’s plenty easy to debunk Oprah’s pseudo-pop-psychylogy-meets-fake-new-age-religion beliefs on their own without resorting to spreading lies about pastors. I actually think the ODM’s hurt their cause because they use such shoddy methodology that it gives the average reader every excuse to ignore them.
EVAN: there’s a huge difference between Oprah saying “this is a great book and i think you ought to read it!” (as with her book club) and *cue scary voice* “deny Chriiiiiiiiiiist!” (which she really doesn’t say anyway.)
RA: Yo bro, by now you know that I am non-reactionary. So, bear that in mind when i say, yes, she does deny Christ, and she does it very blatantly. She has stated, without qualification, that there is not just one way to heaven (contrary to John 14;6 and the entire new Testament). And she has stated most recently, that Jesus only came to show us the “Christ Consciousnes.” And that Jesus came to simply show us some pirnciples and laws to live by, and that Jesus did not come “to start Christianity.” At every turn, she denies the biblical teachings concerning the nature and worked of Christ.
Just fyi.
EVAN: t’s still an intense overreaction to conflate her book club or Favorite thing recommendations with her spiritual beliefs.
RA: Uhm, but that is what the whole Oprah-Tolle webcast is about featuring Tolle and his book A New Earth. She shares his beliefs and those expressed also in A Course in Miracles by Marianne Williamson. Certainly, she can believe what she wants It’s America. But call a duck a duck.
I am ashamed to say that I used to buy into articles like this. My eyes have been opened, thanks in part to this site. BTW, I am reading Jesus for the nonreligious, from John Shelby Spong and God’s Problem from Bart Erhman, and I actually recommend them to expand your thinking and ground your faith. If you guys post this does that mean that you promote Spong and Erhman?
You know, what’s interesting about this is that almost all of the ODMs are dispensationalists which brings with it the teaching that Israel is saved apart from Christ. Here’s Dwayna’s article on it, and here’s CRN.com’s endorsement of it.
Seems like Oprah and the ODMs have more in common than we thought.
Jeff,
Believe me, I understand that all kinds of books, like the ones you mention (and even Tolle’s) can include bits and pieces of thought-provoking, insightful, and interesting little nuggets of stuff that mature Christians can use to expand their thinking and use as springboards for deeper studies in scripture and contemplation of ideas. That is one issue.
Another issue — totally separate — is when those same Christians who happen to be leaders in the church, recommend without qualification or warning various books (like Tolle’s) that are absolute doctrinal heresy. This can harm unstable Christians, young Christians, new converts, potential converts. This is not saying that such leaders are themselves New Agers or Liberals, nor is it saying they believe everything they are reading in such books. But it IS saying that such actions are at best highly irresponsible because:
1. the average person does not read such literature with their eyes, mind, heart, or spiritual maturity.
2. it makes it seem as if the particular heretical author they name/recommend without warning is just fine.
3. the overall paradigm advanced by such heretics is not being adequately explained to those less accustomed to dealing with this kind of material.
my 2 cents.
Yeah, Tim, reading this phrase written by a Dispensationalist almost causes a rip in the space-time contimuum:
Great Scott!!
Richard,
You have a point, leaders should qualify a recommendation as the church is full of sheep that cannot think for themselves. The proof is how many people trust every word from guys like Dobson, Robertson and the late Falwell. Even when they say something completely off the wall….
i’m not quite sure i agree that that assessment, but again, it doesn’t seem she’s “instructing” people what they should believe…and as far as the Tolle thing…obviously he’s a teacher, but the people taking the online class are doing so of their own volition, and Oprah makes no claims to be a Christian Leader…plus, the online classes are like two hours long, so it’s not something the average person is just going to “stumble upon.”
anyway. she’s Oprah. she’s been on the scene for over two decades — people are familiar enough with her to take or leave what she says.
as opposed to when they’re sleeping or their mouths are full.
Frankly, Oprah’s “spirituality” sucks.
However, her personality is vibrant and she seems like a good soul who really cares about the people she meets.
Given the choice between the angry Christian and the kind hearted pagan, I’ll take the pagan. “Good Samaritan”, anyone?
Speaking of Oprah… why can’t we take teachings like this with a grain of salt? I mean, there is truth to be found even when you have to wade through a lot of manure to find it. I can not find one church that preaches a message I agree with 100%, but that doesn’t mean that I have nothing to gain or learn from such a church.
Read and learn as much as you can, and pray for discernment and guidance from God.
And just so everyone knows, I am not into Oprah or Tolle. I was a little embarrassed to read The Road while all the big Os were reading it even though I purchased it months before it became so mainstream. Oprah’s spirituality just seems superstitious or something to me – anyway, something’s amiss with her, in my opinion.
Jeff’s comments are excellent examples of why there needs to be some discernment regardless of your view of the official ODM sites.
John Shelby Spong. Would anyone post anything that he wrote?
Rick,
of course I would.
for a laugh.
haha, that’s happened to me several times!
The Road
The Pillars of the Earth
didn’t she pick Love in the Time of Cholera recently?
that one.
The biggest joke, is that most often if a ODM attacks it, it has made me grow more in my walk with Christ… (now I am not talking Oprah and Toll here).
I have made good friends with those who they attack and seem to read and learn and like most the books they deem heretical! They have introduced me to new Christian Mystics and I now have a deeper appreciation for people like Calvin… yep I said it.
So, it seems like that episode of Seinfeld when they had bizarro Seinfeld and all the characters were the opposite of George Elaine and Jerry… LOL!
Gotta love them for somethings..
iggy
You mean like Batterson wrote on his reading list page (on which the offending book was buried)?:
“As with all books and authors, I don’t agree with everything they write or some of the philosophy behind their ideas. But the ideas in their books have stretched my thinking in some way…”
Why can’t that be enough? The over-reactions to a book on a shelf are amazing…
Chris – Yes, that’s what I mean.
they would looooove my “religion” bookshelf.
3 Bibles.
one Torah sort of thing
Gnostic Gospels…several titles there
one book of Mormon
Bhagavad-Gita
several Baha’i texts
two Q’urans
assorted Native American stuff.
and lots of Jung.
etc.
not because i believe/don’t believe in any of the above, but because i like to learn.
some of them would probably suggest that having some of those books in my house is “dangerous.”
Chuck,
Interest place for Mark to put it – i.e., buried in the last section of “Recommended Books: Science.” IMHO, certainly acceptable for many books that are either other Christian books with which he disagrees, or basic philosophy books, and general knowledge books. But I don’t think its: a) enough for a book like Tolle’s; or b) enough when what is closest to a book like Tolle’s is actually this comment: ” These books were instrumental in the way I think about life.”
Read that as a basic sheep might read it. I’m sure it’s good enough for you, or me, or all kinds of thoughtful persons. But as we have seen, most persons are not very thoughtful. There needs to be a little more care and caution shown when dealing with books filled with spiritually destructive things (like Tolle’s The Power of Now). just my 2 cents — again. lol.
Richard,
I understand what you are saying, though I think most people need more credit.
If I read and quote Stephen Hawkins am I them supporting all his views including atheism?
I have read many books, in fact many of the books on his list and even the “good” ones have stuff in it more dangerous than the ‘bad” ones as these are “Christians”>
Now, I am not against the Purpose Driven Life books, but to me there is a big thing missing… that as one is in Christ they already have a Purpose.
now there is at least two ways to look at it… that Rick is leading people into their “Purpose” to love and serve God, or that somehow most people who come to faith miss clear biblical passages to teach them and do not understand the Power and purpose of the Holy Spirit which they received. I am saying that even RW’s “good” book can replace the Holy Spirit or be used by the Holy Spirit…
WHat I mean is even PDL can be a “bad” book (which I am not stating it is, but in how it can be viewed and used)
I have read some very heretical books but gained major understanding becuase God spotlighted the Truth in it…
I would recommend “as a man thinketh” though I am not sure the person who wrote it was even a Christian…
I recommend Imitation of CHrist at the risk someone might not understand the meaning of “Religious” is different now than when it was written and that one may need to sort through some of the Catholic doctrines… I hope you see what I mean. I put more trust in God making people grow than I do in my own censorship.
Believe it or not I would recommend a reading of the diary of a witch… not for doctrinal proposes but to understand those who are into witchcraft. The author was a student of Alister Crowley. (note I recommend this as you would to one studying Mormonism and that they need read some of their doctrinal books)
iggy
Stephen Hawkins = Stephen Hawking
Iggy – you are in a wormhole!
Iggy: I understand what you are saying, though I think most people need more credit.
RA: LOL. I don’t. present company excluded.
- – - –
Iggy: If I read and quote Stephen Hawkins am I them supporting all his views including atheism?
RA: Oh goodness, no no no no. Of course not. My whole argument in support of Rick doing such a thing can vbe found all over the internet. That wasn’t my point, obviously. Context is everything. But I thing it’s a bit irresponsible to recommend a book like Tolle’s in a way that just sort of leaves it naked, if you will, out in cyberspace. I’ve quoted Oscar Wilde. lol.
- – -
Iggy: I have read many books, in fact many of the books on his list and even the “good” ones have stuff in it more dangerous than the ‘bad” ones as these are “Christians.”
RA: Yup me too.
- – -
Iggy: Now, I am not against the Purpose Driven Life books, but to me there is a big thing missing… that as one is in Christ they already have a Purpose.
RA: yeah, I think that’s the whole pint of the book – to tell people just that.
- — – -
Iggy: I have read some very heretical books but gained major understanding because God spotlighted the Truth in it…
RA: oh yeah, yeah, yeah, me too, bro. My issue is not us taking books as individuals w/ the Holy Spirit and allowing God to use them in our lives as we grow and learn about life, the world around us, and others. But my problem is then taking that freedom which is mine, and as a Christian leader, saying to all kinds of people I do not know ANYTHING about — “HEY! here, go read this book!” As I said, that’s kind of irresponsible and shortsighted (if not a bit naive).
- – - -
Iggy: Believe it or not I would recommend a reading of the diary of a witch… not for doctrinal proposes but to understand those who are into witchcraft. The author was a student of Alister Crowley. (note I recommend this as you would to one studying Mormonism and that they need read some of their doctrinal books)
RA: For you, that’s fine. But what is your responsibility to young Christians, those not as discerning as you, potential converts, new believers still searching out how to just live the Christian life. That’s my issues with some of these leaders who just throw out all kinds of books to read because these books were fine for THEM to read. I hope I’ve made sense.
RA
“But what is your responsibility to young Christians, those not as discerning as you, potential converts, new believers still searching out how to just live the Christian life. That’s my issues with some of these leaders who just throw out all kinds of books to read because these books were fine for THEM to read.”
But RA, isn’t that exactly why some criticize RW for? He associates with all kinds of people and without clear disclaimers. So when a young Christian sees Rick Warren cooperating with a leader of a gay activist organization isn’t that potentially sending the wrong signal to a young Christian? (and not so young Christians)
Rick: But RA, isn’t that exactly why some criticize RW for?
RA: Negative. Warren is criticized for 3 things that I find baseless:
1. Working SOCIALLY with unbelievers. (I see nothing in scripture not allowing for this.)
2. Believing New Age doctrines – This is absurd. He is not a pantheist or anything else New Age, which is a movement he has repeatedly condemned.
3. Often quoting sources in his book to lend outside-Christian support for a truth that is taught in Scripture. I see this as similar to Paul quoting pagans to make a point he is trying to make (see acts and elsewhere).
I am talking about something altogether different — i.e., just recommending outright a wildly heretical book (like The Power of Now by Tolle) with no context whatsoever, on the Internet, with the only preface being it is a book that was instrumental in shaping one’s view of life. Big differences in my opinion.
I would be guilty of Silvaitis if I aaccused Batterson of actually believing everything Tolle said or not being a Christian (or of being a New Ager). I’m just saying he’s being irresponsible and not thinking.
“Working SOCIALLY with unbelievers. (I see nothing in scripture not allowing for this.)”
That is an incredibly simplistic way to describe it. This isn’t grabbing a water bucket to help put out a neighbor’s house fire, what Warren does is cooperate with people who reject Christ. Your postulate is proving a negative. The “man of peace” interpretation proposed by RW has no epistological support and if fact manipulates the narrative.
And even if we assume valid Biblical support for that kind of cooperation, then wouldn’t a disclaimer along the same lines you suggest for books be in order?
Read this slight change:
“But my problem is then taking that freedom which is mine, and as a Christian leader, saying to all kinds of people I do not know ANYTHING about — “HEY! here, go cooperate with this guy!” As I said, that’s kind of irresponsible and shortsighted (if not a bit naive).”
as well you should.
R: … what Warren does is cooperate with people who reject Christ.
RA: To do what? Feed poor, educate illiterate, pass out medicine, etc etc etc. Okay, so what? If you’re interested I’ve done a littel article on this issue = Working Socially With Unbelievers. You might also find my article on The PEACE Plan interesting, since I document how this is actually, truth be told, one big evangeliam strategy to eradicate those social issues that are hindering the gospel. NO WAY!!!!! Yes, way. You can read the documents for yourself. That part is under the subheading “AN EVANGELISM STRATEGY.” Enjoy.
R: …. wouldn’t a disclaimer along the same lines you suggest for books be in order?
RA: I suppose that would be an opinion like my opinion is just an opinion about the book that Batteson recommends. See, here’s where I differ from the heresy hunters. I can say to you, “OK, yeah, I suppose. But when it comes to social work and cultural cooperation, I don’t see what the big deal is.” At the some time, I can say, but when it comes to books that are recommended with content that is actually PUSHING false truth — i.e., a heretical thing is being recommended (I;ve yet to see Rick recommend Hinduism) — then I personally think it’s irresponsible. I can disagree with you. You can disagree with me. Whatever. Okay. That’s cool. It doesn’t change the Christianity of you, me, or Warren. We are all different people looking at a certain non-essential issue differently.
RA – would publicly cooperating with New Agers in humanitarian endeavors be acceptable? I mean can we feed the poor etc. with Oprah, Tolle, Hefner, etc.?
What you fail to understand, beside the confusion element about which you reference about books, is that feeding the poor IS their religion. So in essence we partcipate in their religion to the confusion of many who I have heard personally use as proof that “even Rick Warren knows we all serve the same god”.
Where do they get that from? And I am not saying becoming a raving maniac about RW and every good thing he does, I am speaking of a major and legitimate concern many believers have about RWs (and others) joining hands to “feed the poor” when we could and should be doing it in Jesus name without enlisting the help of unbelievers.
Good motives and noble efforts do not give us carte blanche in our behavior. Jesus Himself was criticized for wasting money and He put the humantarian efforts in their proper perspective. We teach the wrong thing when we are unequally yoked in an unscriptural arrangement, regardless of our intentions.
When you say non-essential do you mean non-salvidic and everything else is unimportant? I do not understand.
Yes, we can.
Joe – I do believe the anti-christ will be happy to help with any humanitarian efforts we want him to. Mormons, JWs, Scientologists, and everyone will help. I mean who is against feeding the poor?
You fail to see the Trojan Horse aspect of such activity.
Rick,
I answered only because you and I have been round and round about this before. You work only with the people you agree with and I’ll work with the others. I’ll rejoice that you take your passion and use it with the people you agree with Theologically and I’ll sleep well at night knowing that based on my understanding of the Scriptures and the working of the Holy Spirit in my life I am doing God’s work with people who I do not agree with.
To me, your Trojan horse argument is as empty as the accusation against Jesus that he ate with sinners.
R – I mean can we feed the poor etc. with Oprah, Tolle, Hefner, etc.?
RA: I suppose if I wanted to build a homeless shelter in East LA, and Oprah heard about it, and she called me and said she’d give me 10 million to build it – no strings attached, then, yeah I’d take it and use her help to build it. You wouldn’t? Okay, that’s your choice. ODn’t take it. But I will. and hopefully, along the way, I’d be able to squeeze sharing the gospel in there to her and anyone else I’d be able to talk to. But that’s me. if you don’t agree, then don’t do it. But just don’t say I am being unbiblical when you have no bible verses to point to.
R: What you fail to understand, beside the confusion element about which you reference about books, is that feeding the poor IS their religion. So in essence we participate in their religion to the confusion of …….
RA: Youre kidding right? Feeding the poor is now a religion? Since when? I’ve been a student of world religions, cults, the occult, and fringe religious groups for 15 years – never heard seen feeding the poor as a doctrinal mark of a religion. Feeding the poor is feeding the poor. I’m sure atheists and agnostics who work in humanitarian fields would have a few arguments for you. You can’t just redefine stuff like that Rick.
R: many who I have heard personally use as proof that “even Rick Warren knows we all serve the same god”.
RA: That’s idiotic. Ask them to prove that. You can also get all kinds of kooky things from taking Bible verses out of context and twist it by not reading it closely — does that mean the Bible is not actually saying those things?
R: ……. I am speaking of a major and legitimate concern many believers have about RWs (and others) joining hands to “feed the poor” when we could and should be doing it in Jesus name without enlisting the help of unbelievers.
RA: Okay, fine. Just show me where that is ANYTHING more than a personal opinion by showing me a Bible verse that forbids it.
R: Good motives and noble efforts do not give us carte blanche in our behavior.
RA: Strawman. Never said it did. Bible verses, please.
R: Jesus Himself was criticized for wasting money and He put the humanitarian efforts in their proper perspective. We teach the wrong thing when we are unequally yoked in an unscriptural arrangement, regardless of our intentions.
RA: I already gave you a lik above to a sound Bible study on 2 Cor. 6:14-15. That verse is not applicable. Sorry, the verse is not a prohibition against working socially with unbelievers.
R: When you say non-essential do you mean non-salvific and everything else is unimportant? I do not understand.
RA: “We are all different people looking at a certain non-essential issue differently” would include an issue like whether or not to work with unbelievers for social justice and to assist in humanitarian aid. There is nothing in the Bible to prohibit such actions.
“Jeff’s comments are excellent examples of why there needs to be some discernment regardless of your view of the official ODM sites.”
Rick, what do you mean?
Jeff – My comment was in no way directed at you, but rather to bring to light a very real problem. As you probably know Spong and Erhman are both apostates and no longer espouse the Christ of the Scriptures. Even some of the more liberal elements of Christianity distance themselves from these men.
However they are intelligent and excellent writers. You may be able to “strengthen your faith” through their books, however many would have their faith shaken by them. This isn’t a matter of freedom, it is a matter of wisdom in the church.
Language itself is mercurial and comes with an inherent quality that allows defined pliability at the conscious and subconscious behest of the reader. Simply put, language is a manipulative tool and when in the hands of someone gifted in communication and with a poisonous agenda, language can affect a person’s faith, and it does not necessarily have to be a weak person as evidenced by Erhman’s metamorphosis.
In summary, we must be careful what we read, not because we are fearful or our faith is weak, but because we desire to honor God and not place temptation in our path vonluntarily which is unscriptural. Our faith will be tested by many things in this world, not the least of which will be the test of living it out in this dark world in a meaningful way. But to fill our minds with the well written appeals from apsotates is very unwise and Spong and Erhman have both already been used to lead many people significantly astray.
Thanks for the clarification on the comment. I am no longer afraid to read anything as I have already had my faith shaken and now I am trying to bring it back. Not that I am looking to Spong or Ehrman as my model to faith. However, I used to be one of those Slice,or Silva types that hold the Bible almost above God (David Hayward created a great comic on this http://nakedpastor.com/archives/1947). Then I started to realize that the ODM’s that I associated with were lying more than relaying Truth. Over the course of the past 12 months I have had an extreme worldview change. I used to think the Bible was perfect, God breathed, innerrent etc, I no longer see it as such. I see many aspect of organized christianity as methods of control, I am disgusted by my brothers and sisters in the Lord that blindly associate themselves to a certain political party because it is “Gods” party. At this point in my faith journey I desire to read a varity of perspectives, however, I see your point. Many people have such a weak foundation of faith that reading a certain book at certain time in their life could promote completely giving up on God. I will not do that, I have lived long enough to see the positive aspects that faith has had on my life to give it up.
Thanks, Jeff. Seeing the Scriptures an inerrant is not a salvation issue. The political thing, well I suggest withdrawing completly. The only thing about those two guys is that they reject Christ.
That is the issue that must never be compromised. Remember, Jeff, some of the martyrs never saw a “positive” aspect of faith on earth, but they do now! Seek Christ and Christ alone because all men have feet of clay.