“God is not moody or capricious; He knows no seasons of change. He has a single relentless stance toward us: He loves us. He is the only God man has ever heard of who loves sinners. False gods–the gods of human manufacturing–despise sinners, but the Father of Jesus loves all, no matter what they do.”
-Brennan Manning
This entry was posted
on Saturday, October 10th, 2009 at 6:17 pm and is filed under Church and Society, Theology, grace, quote.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
![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")
85 Comments(+Add)
Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
papist!
babylonian whore-pimp!
“christian”!
Yes and amen. God’s love is not emotion, it is redemption. That is why any hint that God did not at least prvide for and offer redemtion to every creature is antichrist.
This is the God who IS love.
God is love, but God is also just.
Does God love those whom He must judge? I struggle with that. If he loves people, does he love those who take the lives of those people?
Does God love those that are under condemnation? Or does he love those who take his free gift of grace? This is what I struggle with.
God loves everyone. It doesn’t mean everyone lives in this reality, though. A person is under condemnation only because he doesn’t choose to submit to God’s love.
Also the fact that God chose to take the physical lives of some in OT doesn’t tell us anything about their eternal destination. Only God is in a place to know a person’s heart, so it’s not something for us to worry about.
The love of God is redemption. God offers everyone that free gift which IS His love. However, when a sinner dies outside that redemption God’s love ends for him or her. We struggle with a myopic view of love, and our anthropomorphic understanding of God’s love are deceptive and often mislead us into inaccurate assumptions.
God’s love is redemption in the cross of Christ.
God demonstrates his love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us! Romans 5:8
Emergents have a problem with the whole sin thing, though. It is one thing I learned at C?21 this weekend.
I think thats why they have a problem with the whole penal substitutionary thing too.
The penal thing is not a deal breaker, however when they blur the line between works and faith, and when the cross is almost absent from their gospel, that is a deal breaker.
nc,
Brennan is not a Christian, he is a Catholic.
Not the same thing, unfortunately.
Yes, he is Catholic, but I have no doubt he’s a Christian. His understanding of God’s love and what Christ did is better than most Protestants have, sadly.
John,
You are hopeless.
Who are these ‘emergents’ you continually refer to. Why are you so one subject minded? You have a one track mind and it always comes back to those you disagree with. Here in your two quotes, ‘emergents’ and catholics.
Hopeless.
If he is relying on his works, or the church, or the sacraments to save him he may have great philosophy and understanding, but not salvation.
It was the same with Nadia BW at the c?21 conference. Has some great things to say, love the liturgy, etc…but cannot deal with the idea of sin keeping one out of the kingdom. Its a belief that works or church affiliation gets you in. And it does not. Unfortunately.
Well, Jerry, I met with a gaggle of them this past weekend.
These emergents that I met all seemed intelligent, well spoken, nice (except for Doug Pagitt). Some had church backgrounds, others did not. They all have the same issue, quoting the snake in the garden ‘did God really say’. Doubt is the new faith. Question everything, and whatever answer you arrive at (if you ever do) is good for you.
I am pretty one subject minded, Jerry, it is for lost people. I want people to get saved so that God gets glorified. I go where lost people are. And they were in Minneapolis gathered at Good Samaritan United Methodist Church. And my heart broke, and I was filled with compassion. I love them so much I told them the truth of the Gospel.
John,
That is BS. You are one subject minded that people agree with your particularly narrow idea of what christianity is.
Furthermore, there is no such thing as ‘these emergents.’ That is another myth you have created to bolster your sense of self-importance.
jerry
#14
I must admit, I am pretty narrow. Christianity is what Jesus said it is. This is found in the Gospels, it is explained in the epistles, and it is all inspired.
You must be born again. This is an act of God regenerating a dead sinner. He begins the regeneration, we respond by His grace through His faith by repenting and believing the Gospel.
It really is simple.
Christianity is not what Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones, Shane Claibourne, Jim Wallis, Brian McLaren, Rick Warren, Marcus Borg, Rob Bell, etc says it is. It is what Jesus said it was.
Unless you are born again, you will not see the kingdom of God.
Once again John, you are off base. Broad generalizations and wide brush strokes will not satisfy this argument.
Marcus Borg? Are you serious. You are lumping Rick Warren and rob Bell and Shane Claibourne in with Marcus Borg?
I just bought a book by Claibourne tonight so I’ll see if your assertion is true. But Bell and Warren…..bwahahahahahahahaha.
i would be an “emergent” by your standards, PB.
i think sin is pretty serious…of cosmic proportions and implications….
thanks though…
btw, you couldn’t tell i was being sarcastic about responding to the quote?
i was using the tactics that the ODM’s love…putting quotes around a term…in this case “christian”.
well, christianity certainly isn’t the Lordship Salvation heresy of J-Mac. or the Scream of the Damned heresy of John Piper.
(to be clear, it isn’t an “easy-believism” heresy either…)
so there’s a lot of mistakes all around…
i will say i commend your going to C21.
i would have gone and taken what i thought was worthwhile…left what i didn’t…
as at any conference i’d go to…
it would be great for you to just go somewhere and choose to bridle your mouth….really listen…and then mull over things…
you don’t have to constantly offer your opinion…especially when you have a track record mischaracterizing and excusing such mischaracterization.
not saying everyone is “perfect” at c21…but i’ve heard some pretty god awful statements from the outhouse that is the world of many of your modern day heroes…
I find it funny that fundamentalists quote this all the time, but rarely look at the larger context of this phrase.
So Jesus says a person must be born of the Spirit, but the Spirit is like the wind, which no one can really explain why and how it works. Yet people take this and turn it into a formula to say that everyone must go through an identical conversion experience to be born again. Even when Jesus explained this to Nicodemus, He didn’t give much in the way of “how-to”. He just told Him He must believe in Him.
Belief. I know some churches, in fact I worked for one, where just such a belief is spouted off in mantra-like form every sunday from 1030-1125. Oh yes, there is belief.
But there’s nothing going on that would substantiate such a belief in any real, tangible, functional, Good Samaritan kind of way. I would challenge, and in fact did to the point that it cost me my pulpit, whether such belief means anything at all. Or whether it even exists.
So when it gets right down to it, what does that belief mean?
I think all it means is that these men are trying to figure out how that belief affects and challenges their every day life. If belief doesn’t do something, then it doesn’t mean anything.
I don’t commend him for going. It sounds to me like he went for no other reason than to find something to bitch about.
oops. sorry about that.
How much do you want to bet that “Pastor” boy hasn’t actually read Brennan Manning?
It would be impossible to completely inventory the Biblical issues with that Christianity 21 conference. I have read several of the speakers and it is disturbing to say the least.
The format, 21 women telling us what Christianity should look like in the 21st century, is in and of itself absurd. But it is all in the continuing avante garde style of many emergents. (To be fair it is no different than having 21 Ingrid’s telling the church what to do.)
I will agree with the emergent view in this one fact. What passes in the west as Biblical Christianity isn’t at all Biblical.
Perhaps this might be better.
If I understand correctly, PB didn’t actually attend the conference. He just stood outside and harassed the speakers and attendees. So it’s hard to commend him for that.
Phil,
You really should check your sources.
I didn’t harass anybody, speakers or attendees. I stood outside and preached on topics like:
The Bible
The doctrine of God
The doctrine of Man
Sin/judgement/wrath
The doctrine of Christ
Salvation
Justification
Reconciliation
Sanctification
I obeyed the laws of the community, I did not use any amplification, and I walked on the sidewalks outside the parking lot.
It is so interesting that these people are so into conversation, yet allow no dissenting views. They are tolerant of all things but Biblical Christianity.
Bo,
I was required to in one of my masters’ classes.
I am no longer attending that university because of it.
It is possible to be saved and a Roman Catholic. That does not in any way substantiate their teachings.
Yes, they will know you are a Christian by your….
It was not even close to a Christian conference.
I didn’t know a conference could get saved…
What makes a thing “Christian”, anyway?
Yu are right, a thing cannot be Christian.
But when you call an event Christianity 21 shouldn’t the content at least be reflective of Christianity?
This conference was void of the cross and the Gospel and anything resembling Biblical teaching.
It cannot be called Christian.
And how exactly do you know this if you didn’t actually sit in any of the seminars?
I’m not saying I agree with everything (or anything maybe) that was said there, but on what evidence are you saying there wasn’t anything resembling Biblical teaching? Did you press your ear against the door?
No, Phil, I read the tweets.
I also read the experience of one former Solomon’s Porch member.
Just go to #c21 on twitter, you will see what I mean, or maybe you won’t.
Allowing yourself to be placed as a defense of such a conference is probably a losing strategy. Plus, it indicates that someone’s position is dictated by what another person’s position is.
Well, those tweets are a few people’s perspectives, and, like I said, I probably wouldn’t agree with a lot that was said there. That doesn’t mean I’d condemn the whole lot.
As far the supposed post from [REDACTED], that’s the first I’ve heard of that, and a google search doesn’t reveal any more info about him and a divorce. Let’s just say I’m a bit hesitant to take as gospel a comment on blog from someone simply calling herself or himself [REDACTED]. It certainly seems you are a bit eager to accept it as the truth, though.
If something like Christianity 21 doesn’t concern you, then nothing will. The language thing is troubling and represents a childish naughtiness, and the gay thing is also unbiblical.
But the worst and most heretical core of things like this is the suggestion that other religions can lead to God, which of course, blasphemes the Savior’s work on the cross.
I’m not defending anything. All I’m saying is that the ends don’t justify the means. It’s the same issue I have with “Christian” groups that are dedicated to single issues such as creationism, anti-abortion, or on the more liberal side healthcare, immigration. It seems that it doesn’t take too long before the truth is the casualty in their wars.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say you stand for the truth, and then use questionable methods in debating your opponent and presenting your case.
My natural tendency, right or wrong, is to defend someone who I perceive is being lied about or slandered. I have serious theological disagreements with many of the people at that conference it would seem, but so far no one has presented anything about what the actual content of the sessions was. All that’s been presented is a few tweets from attenders.
I do not believe you can be convinced, especially when you admit a preconceived perspective.
I have already made known my views about the productivity of going to the city to preach to the attendees, however John’s overall assessment of its message is accurate.
I was accused of not doing enough research when I said I had only listed to about 7 of Bell’s sermons and read 1 of his books. If I actually though John was misrepresenting that conference, I would provide evidence to the contraray.
Far be it from me to point out the obvious; but it is also possible to be saved and be Rick Frueh or pastorboy. That also doesn’t in any way substantiate their teachings.
That’s so noble of you. That’s the way to take a stand for something. I for one am proud of you.
I had to read Bill Hybels and Dallas Willard at Seminary. I got a 4.0 in the class…lol. In undergraduate school, I had to read George Orwell and John Steinbeck.
I read Rob Bell for breakfast. And right now I’m praying through Jesus for President by Shane Claiborne. I’m having Anne Lamott for lunch. But I’m not quitting life because of it.
I read Richard Dawkins for fun.
When I want a really good laugh, I read DA Carson.
But you take your stand against Manning there John. Good call…you know….the whole if you don’t stand for something…blahblahblah…
@#39–good point.
Convinced of what? I’ve already said that I probably disagree with a lot that was said, but the fact is I don’t really have much evidence of what was said. As I’ve stated numerous times here, I don’t adhere to the guilty until proven innocent paradigm espoused by some.
Generally, I’m not a big fan of conferences of any stripe. I don’t think they are that useful, for the main purpose that most people simple do not absorb information in the way that it is presented in conferences. I think they are generally an inefficient use of resources. They can be useful for fellowship purposes, but I’d rather people would say, “we’re all going to get together and hang out this weekend”. Why does everything have to be justified by, “and we’ll sit in a large group and listen to someone talk”?
You crack me up, Brett…
I also heard that there might be some Lutherans and who are actually saved despite their bad theology…
Getting back to Brennan Manning, if there’s one thing that he can’t be accused of, it’s promoting the idea that people are somehow saved by works. He stridently fights against that idea in every book I’ve ever read by him, actually. If you don’t come away with the idea that God loves you no matter what you do after reading his books, than you really have no reading comprehension skills.
#39 – Agreed!!
Brett – It is also possible to have orthodox teachings and not be saved. Right?
God’s grace, ya gotta love it!!
When I think about it, I think I have been emergent long before emergent was a popular term. I wonder how long I have actually been lost?
#42 – My point was that the error being spread in this conference was like seeking a treause and having it hit you on the head. I have come to believe that the speakers and promoters of such a conference actually believe that other religions can lead to God and eternal life.
BTW – If you did not believe it, wouldn’t that be a clear teaching at some point in order to make disciples and not give Muslims, etc. false hope?
Yes, objectively speaking right!
But I really don’t understand why almost every topic here comes down to who’s to be saved vs. who’s not to be saved.
I teach 10-12 young people about Jesus every Monday night. In fact I’m preparing for tonight’s gospel on the (rich young man) as we speak. I think that very question was asked and answered by the Lord. It’s true that God may be someone that we are merely curious about fitting into our lives in a comfortable way; but his DESIRE is that we follow him with our whole heart, mind, soul, and strength.
I’m comfortable with him alone being my judge.
I vacillate and struggle with who is saved. Sometimes I believe only I am saved, while other times I believe Chad is right.
Most times I am somewhere in between, usually leaning significantly toward a comparitively smallish crowd worldwide.
Well, I suppose…
Perhaps like when Rob Bell had Roxy Kahn, an ex-Muslim speak at Mars Hill last year? (I know it’s not related to this discussion, but I couldn’t resist). I can’t find a link to actual mp3 anymore, but I do have it on my Ipod. She makes it very clear in her testimony that Muslims need to be rescued out of that religion.
“Jesus is better”
is not
“Jesus is only”
I understand what you’re getting at, but really, does that distinction make much difference to a Muslim? Saying Jesus is better than Allah would really be just as offensive as saying He’s the only way, wouldn’t it? I believe both would potentially get you killed in certain countries.
The fact that you are listing “emergents” who supposedly deny that one must be born again due to sin – and include Rick Warren in the list is comical. I think it betrays your bent.
While I agree with your theology, your application of it is too narrow… narrow theology – good… narrow application – not always good.
Clearly, your beef with Warren is not his denial of the need to be born again – it is how he chooses to apply it, and of course – his linguistics.
You forgot to add jealousy and petty envy to the list.
While it may be possible that a speaker you invited teaches things with which you disagree, when you hire him as teaching pastor all doubt is removed.
Shane Hipps becomes teaching pastor at Mars Hill.
I was waiting for this to become public knowledge…
What exactly is wrong with Hipps? He’s Mennonite, of course, but from what I’ve read he seems OK. I sympathize a more with the Mennonite/Anabaptist tradition than the Reformed folks who seem to be his biggest critics, that’s for sure.
There is nothing wrong with anyone, except those who find something wrong with anyone.
Rick Frueh circa A.D. 2009
I did not forget. I cannot read Pastorboy’s heart.
so PB didn’t actually go to the conference?
tweets are now the basis for a fully informed position on something?
21 voices speaking on a wide range of issues and they all are some monolithic system of non-orthodoxy?
plurality of opinions on a church staff is now something bad or to be avoided?
Rick,
The problem here is that the two statements are rooted in being answers to different questions.
“Jesus is better” (though I’ve usually heard this as “Jesus is best”, which still holds the comparative syntax) is in answer to the question “What is the best way to live?” There are thousands of “ways” to live, but Jesus’ is the best way.
“Jesus is only” is in answer to the question “how can I be saved?”, in which saved is primarily understood to be a question of eternity (which, in a way, already implies an unbalanced view of God’s desire for man, which is to live in love and service).
ByBut the problem with conflating the two as being answers to the same question (assuming the latter, obviously) is that you then imply that the speaker is suggesting there are multiple ways to eternity with God. What this misses, though, is that more often than not, the “Jesus is better” qualifier is aimed at a way of life, not a way of post-death.PB,
you really should take that post down about [REDACTED].
you don’t know that situation and it’s patently wrong to assume that what was said in that comment is accurate.
just like people here said it was wrong to make hay out of Ingrid’s divorce…it cuts both ways.
that post is just really low.
for even you.
Pastorboy
Seriously, that post is beyond rude and inappropriate. Even if it is true – to leverage someone’s marital problems and the possible hunger of children to make a point is as un-Christ-like as anything I have seen… from either side.
As if you needed more proof that “Pastor” John Chisham is unqualified for leadership, he provides yet another example.
Also, since when is [REDACTED]? I suppose it could be possible, but when its an anonymous post I’m a bit more skeptical about those kind of assertions.
I formally disassociate myself from comments or tweets concerning anyone’s personal lives (sins). In fact, I laboriously attempt to keep my own private since my sins are many.
Their is nothing so unchristian than to publicly post about people’s personal sins, except when they are posted without complete substantiation. It reveals both a relishing of a doctrinal oponent’s struggles, as well as implying that the person’s struggles mean his teachings are false.
In that case, I can name a number of dead and living Calvinist, reformed, and all other men to whom that would apply. In fact, the world does the same thing, even implying that a preacher’s sins mean Christ is not who they say He is. It is profoundly wrong and even wicked (demonic).
Im about finished with all the arguing , and im not trying get on anyones side , i see a lot of good points made by ohn …
But please John take that off ur site thats just not right , as ur brother im asking you to please remove it
I can assure all of you that nobody’s children are going hungry in the aforementioned situation.
that’s all I’m going to say…
(Please excuse me for this issue stirs me)
Every once in a while, in the midst of an energetic discussion of doctrine, someone who agrees with you reveals such an unloving and personal vendetta that you are ashamed of your “side”. All personal failings must be handled within the context of that particular local assembly.
This kind of personal revelations are unredemptive projections that make a blog more worthy of the checkout line at the grocery store rather than a blog run by a pastor. Not only should it be taken dwon, but an apology might provide some level of redemption.
Just about the time I was agreeing with Pastorboy on some points…
PB,
Every once in a while, every so often, even your critics might stumble into truth and be right about something. It would serve you well to listen…
So….
[PRIVATE CONTENT REDACTED]
FYI – in similar fashion to an incident about yourself, I have redacted personal information & items that could be considered personal and private – and whose veracity cannot be verified at this time.
Pr 18:8.
Sticking it where it does not belong:
Your nose.
You have every right to argue Scripture and contend for the faith, but you have no business publishing and making a judgment about a situation that God has not called you to deal with. This is exactly what Ingrid does consistently, even though she desires her sins under the blood, she uncovers everyone else’s sins if she deems them juicy enough as they enter her bottom feeding e-mail alerts.
Christianity is redemptive, and even Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world, but to offer redemption. If you are consistent with your methodology, I would ask you to print the names of the people and preachers you know personally who have been divorced or who have had sexual failures.
See? You are a respector of persons and since [REDACTED] is your doctrinal enemy you feel that his sins will enforce your position.
[REDACTED] – If you read this or hear about it I ask your forgiveness for such gossip. Imay strongly disagree with your theology, but I cannot abide such unchristian behavior, even if I would agree with him on some issues.
It is never right, to do wrong, to accomplish a greater right.
FYI – Folks, I’d like to leave private matters as such, particularly of the nature we’re discussing (having come close to dealing with a similar situation years ago). Things said/shared in such situations can make things worse and reconciliation more difficult, and I don’t want to be a party to such things.
Rick – I fully agree with your assessment in #73.
Even if the veracity can be confirmed, as it concerns any of us, there are things that should not be made public. This is gossip, every bit as sensational as the secular tabloids.
Brothers, and I do mean brothers, sin is the one common denominator that binds us all, and Jesus is the one common denominator that frees us all. Let us debate energetically, even sometimes with unnecessary agressiveness, however let us always bind up each other’s wounds and pour the healing salve of God’s Spirit on each other’s failures.
If we as followers of Jesus do not have redemption for each other’s sins, we have nothing. Nothing at all, and certainly not Jesus.
Peter denied Jesus, and yet he was the guest preacher at the first conference of the Holy Spirit. I suggest the presence of grace.
The Bible invites all people to receive the love of Christ through repentance and forgiveness of sins. Unfortunately, when one or both parties to sin refuse to acknowledge it, and it does harm to the body of Christ, it must be exposed.
In this incident, [REDACTED].
It is not unredemptive to point out sin. If we do not acknowledge our sin, turning from it, we have no hope of redemption.
Please publish the names of congregation members in your church who have sinned.
#77
All of em’
And I am the chief.
And if [REDACTED], I have committed it in mind many more times than he has. But, by the grace of God, I have repented, I have been washed, I have been covered by the blood of Jesus. When I sin now, I readily admit it and turn to the God who has paid the penalty by His Son’s life blood. He paid the penalty, He is my substitute. I have no hope outside of him.
I have great hope for marriage, I am seeing them saved and redeemed in my midst. I praise God that He can heal marriages like mine and people I know personally. as an aside, I recommend Discovering the Mind of a Woman by Ken Nair. It is a difficult read, it is not a how to, but it is a great Biblical insight into how to love like Christ loved the church.
An obvious cop out. Publish the names of the members, past and present, who have committed adultery or have been divorced. And also a list of any and all who have child support issues.
Of course I am teaching a principle. None of us should publish the sins of others unless it is the specific church in which the sin is committed.
Your definition of a “how to” is different than mine.
okay
I was wrong
What lessons can we all learn from this?
* Let the individual local assembly handle personal matters within their flock
* When dealing with these type of extremely delicate issues, let us be patient and extremely reluctant to make a judgment
* Let us assess our compassion quotient, especially when it applies to doctrinal combatants.
* I have taken this opportunity to assess my love for the brethren of all stripes and I have been found wanting. Really and measurably wanting.
There are times when I feel that I have never loved like God desires me to love, and more profoundly, like He loves His enemies. My love seems to be parsed out according to certain rules and perspectives, and with that knowledge I fear I am a respector of persons.
I am not sure how long a change process like this takes, but I am sure of two things: It will take a long time, and it will not happen without a significant amount of brokenness on my part.
Let us also hope that others will see this and reevaluate their own spiritual hearts, and that men like John will be as bold in correcting others as his precious wife was in correcting him. The “watchman” community would be well served to limit their contributions to issues of doctrine and avoid personal attacks.
Thank you, very much, PB.
I agree that we often “lose it” in the heat of the battle. My ‘mirror’ (aka ‘Zan’) has, on a number of occasions, told me to ‘back away from the keyboard’. She is another reason I treasure God’s love – for giving me someone who can correct me, even if I’m not listening to anyone else…
Blessings,
Chris
Thank you, PB. That was well done.
#81.
PB,
your stock just sky rocketed.