Archive for the 'Emergent Church' Category

Breaking News:

EASTON, PA – Today the CEO of Crayola announced it will only manufacture crayons in two colors: black and white.  The CEO was quoted as saying, “We have decided that anything that needs to be expressed by children can be done so using these hues, and that having other colors available to them will just lead them to imbellish the truth and promote post-modern thought.  Additionally, having all the extra colors might encourage children to try and see things from other children’s perspectives.  We at Crayola believe the only perspective children need to see is the correct one we tell them.  Because as we know, there is only one way to look at the world and the events that occur.”

“We are also pleased to announce that next month we will begin shipping our new product tentatively called “fundie-specs”.  When worn, these glasses give the wearer the astounding ability to see amazingly complex things in the simplest of ways.  When presented with a beautiful sunset with complex colors and shading, children will now see only a black circle descending into a white field.  It will make artistic presentation a much simpler endeavor.  We all know that children only need to worry about the bleak facts of the matter and not the stunning beauty.”

  • Share/Bookmark

You will have to strap on your tin foil hats for this one. According to an article linked to by CRN, Brian McLaren is a socialist and will play a direct role in bringing about a one world government.

Apparently, Cuddy, the author of the article has the entire end times figured out.

Please read. And do your best to ignore the goofy ads on the site that feature books like this one:


What this means is that Prince Charles, as heir to the British throne, has a bigger role to play in world affairs than what people could imagine. Joan Veon knows that he is a “Renaissance man: and a man with a mission. As a result of his behind-the-scenes role at the United Nations, Prince Charles is responsible for changing the order of life from the biblical perspective of man having dominance over the earth to one in which the earth has dominance over man. One of the major environmental philosophies which runs tantamount to this is that of “sustainable development.” Because of his global orchestrations, Veon has dubbed Charles “the sustainable prince.”

  • Share/Bookmark

UPDATE: See the first comment from April 5. Richard Abanes quotes a response that he got from Steve Blackwell regarding rudeness.  Hats off to you, Mr Blackwell — your statements are the most asinine, convoluted, anti-Biblical, unChrist-like thing that I have ever seen, and make all ideas that “inspired” this post pale greatly in comparison.

This is actually a follow-up to this post. I was originally going to just put it in as an update to that post, but the idea started growing. Run for your lives!

While one silly assertion was enough to show me that Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be) [sic] wasn’t worth my time/money, Dan Kimball waded through it and put up some thoughts here. (I guess a book in which you are one of the topics is somewhat required reading.)

If you haven’t read Dan’s post already, wanna know what the overwhelming theme was? Taking criticism graciously, actually listening to it, seeing if there is truth to be found there, and (if so) applying the truth to your life.

OK, now I’m about to use a very dirty four-letter word. I think it’s necessary to the context, but I just wanted to warn you.

One might actually get the impression from Dan’s post that he was being … (here it is, brace yourself)NICE.

Of all the criticisms that I hear from the anti-emergents and their ilk, the argument that folks that disagree with them are “too nice” is the one that amazes and disturbs me the most. Sometimes the statement is direct; sometimes a bit oblique, but the underlying message is clear.

Case in point: Recently, I was involved in an online conversation in which an anti-emergent said something very ungracious. I called him on it, and his response was a sarcastic assurance that he heard my “heart-rending plea for unity”. Were we in the same room, I would not have been the least bit surprised if he had patted me on the head.

And therein lies the bigger issue. I chose to illustrate this post with a picture of Mr Rogers quite purposefully. For those in my generation and younger, who grew up watching Mr Rogers’ Neighborhood, the man certainly taught us to be nice. But far too many people have relegated niceness to that show’s demographic, as though that attribute was something that we eventually out-grew.

Yes, we hear your “heart-rending plea for unity”. Now run along, and let the grown-ups talk.

Are there times when we should not be “nice”? Certainly. Look at any one of Jesus’ confrontations with the Pharisees for an example. Or the un-KJV-sanitized version of what Paul was referring to when he said “cut themselves off” (Galatians 5:11-12).

Is it possible to sometimes try to be “too nice”? Certainly. I am reminded of Mark Driscoll’s comment when he was examining some people’s unwillingness to give any kind of input on certain topics (even ones that God made clear) by saying that “someone might get hurt”. Driscoll’s response? “Well, now you’ve just hurt God.”

But somewhere along the way, the thinking has become, “when I argue my point, the other person states that I’m ‘not being nice’, therefore (since I have no need to listen to critical input), ‘being nice’ is something that is to be avoided like the plague.”

By this “logic”:

  • Since I sometimes disagree with the political moves that the NAACP makes, I should shoot the next black person that I see.
  • Since charges of anti-Semitism among Christians are often specious, I should become a skinhead.
  • Since some of the stances of NOW are ridiculous, I should beat my wife.

Ridiculous? Certainly. Is it the logical extension of this thinking? Just as certainly.

Want to do the exact opposite as your “enemy”? Well, I have it under good authority that Brian McLaren never goes to church naked.

  • Share/Bookmark

In the movie, Tin Cup, Kevin Costner plays a golf pro who is so broke that his golf clubs are in hock. However, he has an opportunity to go against his nemesis, and decides to play with a hoe, a rake, and other garden equipment. While Costner’s financial state was of his own doing, the status of his clubs is all too familiar to those that write here.

Quote 1 Corinthians 9:22 (”all things to all men”) to an anti-emergent, and you’ll be told that “all emergents use that verse”. Never mind that (a) that response may be irrelevant to the conversation and (b) you’re not actually an emergent. That verse is off-limits (and therefore, apparently, not inspired by God).

Try to defend the usage of cultural references in teaching and preaching by noting Acts 17:22-34, and the anti-emergents will derisively sniff “contextualization” and terminate the conversation.

Then, of course, there are the claims — though not in so many words — of omniscience. An appeal is made to Matthew 7:16 and similar verses. However, a discussion of the recognition of false teachers somehow becomes a carte blanche that allows one to know every last intimate detail of every motivation of any person in the world, based on a single issue.

Case in point: I’m sure that someone discredited this entire post after 5 words, because I referenced an R-rated movie.

Finally, there’s the slam dunk. If nothing else seems to be working, the anti-emergent claims that the other person is not a Christian. Or as one Slice commenter once so graciously put it:

Houston will be a desert before I accept [him] as a brother in Christ.

I bet the person about whom she was speaking is glad that her acceptance is absolutely meaningless when it comes to his salvation. I find it truly amazing the work that God must have prepared for us, that heaven isn’t going to be full of cursing — “Oh, #%#^!! They are here ?!?!”

And so, here we sit — with a hoe, rake, and a few other garden tools — looking at the opponent’s multi-thousand-dollar set of Callaways, and thinking that the clubs in the backseat of his car look awfully familiar. Unfortunately, it doesn’t end there.

In the early days of the Peanuts comic strip, Linus was still a toddler. In one strip, Lucy spitefully takes all the toys away — not that she’s going to play with them — she just doesn’t want him to have them. She leaves behind a lone piece of string. Linus looks at it for a minute, and in no time is having a blast with that string. Furious, Lucy rushes back and snatches it from him.

To mix the Peanuts and Tin Cup metaphors, Lucy’s coming after the hoe now.

Kevin DeYoung (a pastor in Michigan) and Ted Kluck (a sportswriter) have teamed up to write a book titled Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be). The parenthetical portion of the title is a reference to the fact that, ostensibly, the emergent movement appeals to a particular demographic of which these men are a part. A bit presumptuous, but hey, lets not pick nits. There are much bigger issues between the book’s covers.

In decrying the argument that some of emergent theology is still in process, DeYoung writes:

It’s one thing for a high school student to be in process with his theology. It’s another thing for adults to write books and speak around the world about their musing and misgivings.

This is simply a (slightly) more gracious inverse version of Steve Camp’s rant regarding Tim Challies. Now instead of age bringing wisdom, and formal training being a good thing, we are told that by adulthood, we should have “arrived”.

So why is DeYoung writing this book? Is his only target demographic high-school students? Because, according to him, no one else should be in process with their theology.

For that matter, is the entire congregation of his church under 18? If not, why is he even bothering to talk to people who’ve already missed the boat?

DeYoung goes on:

I agree there must be space for Christians to ask hard questions and explore the tensions of our faith, but I seriously question that this space should be hugely public where hundreds of thousands of men and women are eagerly awaiting the next book or blog or podcast arising from your faith journey.

I’ll lay aside the ridiculous notion that says that if others react improperly to your teaching (e.g. hero worship), that’s because you did something wrong — that horse died a long time ago. The way I read this, DeYoung is saying that hard questions should not be public. Rather, they should be kept relatively private. This way, other people assume that you have no problems or struggles, and they figure they’re the only ones that are messed up. And God forbid that they find out that their leadership doesn’t have all the answers.

In short, DeYoung is advocating lying by omission.

Now, here’s where DeYoung goes after the hoe. To the claim that all emergent leaders should not be lumped together, DeYoung writes that:

when people endorse one another’s book and speak at the same conferences and write on the same blogs, there is something of a discernible movement afoot.

Let’s break this down:

  • Endorsing one another’s books: While Camp’s rant on Challies was waaaaaaaaaay over the top and contained a good bit of error, there probably was a measure of truth to his statements regarding book endorsements — namely, they don’t mean as much as one might think.
  • Speaking at the same conferences: A couple years ago, Mark Driscoll spoke at the same conference as someone with whom he disagreed immensely on several theological issues. For occupying the same space as someone else within a 48-hour period, Driscoll was decried for “partnering in ministry” with the other man. From there it was only a short hop to (mis-)applying 2 Corinthians 6:14 to the situation and claiming that Driscoll was in direct violation of being unequally yoked. Update: Matt Chandler has noted that if someone has the opportunity to share the gospel “even in shady areas, they would be fools to not take advantage of that.”
  • Writing on the same blogs: I can’t decide if this one is asinine or simply hysterical. There are many things about which I disagree with other writers on this blog — and not just because Joe is a [shudder] Yankees’ fan.

In short, DeYoung is saying, “Sorry, you can’t argue that all emergent leaders shouldn’t be lumped together. I have declared otherwise. It is so.” And whatever you do, don’t confuse him with the facts.

And there goes the hoe.

Other anti-emergents must be kicking themselves right about now. Instead of trying to defend irresponsible over-generalization, all they had to do was say “Over-generalization? What over-generalization?” And they could’ve spent their time more productively, like by digging out footnotes from 3-year-old books.

Excuse me — I’m gonna go play with this piece of string now.

  • Share/Bookmark

This was recently submitted by Dave Marriott

I saw this via a link at

As far as I am concerned, the case is closed on Doug Pagitt and Rob Bell…

I am schocked you folks haven’t said anything about this yet…

Thanks for the submission, Dave. You know, If I was invited to join a conversation on spirituality with arguably one of the most influential figures in the world, I would be ecstatic at the opportunity. Imagine the influence that Bell is being given here! He is literally going to have influence over some of the most influential spiritual figures in the history of humanity.

You see, there are two very different responses that one could have to an invitation like this

A. We see this as a vile, universalism event. We reject the invitation in the name of Christianity and the One True God. This obviously would send a crystal clear message to them, and set us apart as having a “one-road to heaven” theology. Understand that I hold strongly to all those theological issues… one god, one way, no other way to heaven. However, by doing this, we must realize that we are bowing out of the global conversation on youth spirituality, and will have little to no influence in this process. The world will move forward in their agenda to convert the young people of the nations, leaving us whining and complaining about how bad the world is years later. I liken this choice to not voting for the president and then complaining about all of the bad decisions later. If you do not put your two cents in at the beginning, you have no right to criticize the global movement that will happen later.

B. We accept the invitation and have influence on the influencers of the world. Bell of Pagitt have not been asked to change their theology, tone down their beliefs or sign a global statement of faith. They have a free platform to shape the spirituality of young people on a huge level. Now, Bell might not convert the Dali Lama that day. However, this is a foot in the door to begin to have discussions with some of the most powerful religious leaders of the world. Imagine if Bell became one of the spiritual advisers for the Buddhist world… imagine the impact he could have with changing their view of Christ.

I pick B. Why is it that the ODMs believe that if we even enter into a conversation with non-beleivers, suddenly we are denying our faith and calling for a one-world-religion. Here is a classic example of Christian isolationism…

20-30 years ago, Disney calls together evangelical leaders to help with the growing number of homosexuals that were joining their organization. They knew that they needed some help if they were going to have an impact on the gay community. After a long debate, the SBC came back to Disney and said that they were against homosexuality and were unwilling to help. It was not their place to do so.

So, the issue grows and grows until Disney is finally forced to give homosexual partners health insurance and benefits. And how does the SBC respond? With a national boycott on Disney for being a “gay-friendly” company, filling our young minds with homosexual perversion. Is there something wrong with this picture?

If you aren’t willing to at least try to solve the problem, don’t complain about the massive movement of problems later on!

  • Share/Bookmark

the ODMs have been harping on Youth Specialties for a while now. Their recent rant was over an advertisement for their annual leadership conference, The Core.

Youth Specialities CORE 2008 Generation Change Youth Conference is “calling students to change their world” and to Generate Hope, Peace, Love, Change, A new mind, A new heart, A new me, Justice. The plenary sessions include:

  • CHANGED PEOPLE ARE MEANT TO BRING CHANGE in terms of “Listen to God”, “Truly Deep Justice”, “Discovering your holy discontent” and “Joining God in Global Transformation”

Of course they brought up all the typical arguments of how meditating on scripture is a horrible thing, and guided prayer could never be a biblical concept. They gave this in response:

How can you generate the changes itemized in the introductory paragraph? Only through the blood of Christ, repentance and by the sanctification of the Holy Spirit as the believer learns to mortify the flesh and live the exchanged life as a new creation in Christ. But you won’t find that at the Core Conference.

Now, being a respectable “research” organization, I am sure they have done the background work and found that the blood of Christ, repentance and sanctification of the Holy Spirit are topics that are off-limits at The Core. Having gone to this event, I can tell you that this is far from the truth. Also, apparently the ODMs do not hold a very high view of scripture. In fact, it is the living word of God that bring about life transformation, and that is ultimately what Youth Specialties is trying to give the Youth today.

Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

How can a young man keep his way pure?
By living according to your word.

I seek you with all my heart;
do not let me stray from your commands.

I have hidden your word in my heart
that I might not sin against you.Praise be to you, O LORD;
teach me your decrees.
With my lips I recount
all the laws that come from your mouth.

I rejoice in following your statutes
as one rejoices in great riches.

I meditate on your precepts
and consider your ways.
I will meditate on all your works
and consider all your mighty deeds.

Sounds like meditating on scripture, recounting the word of God and listening for the voice of God may be a heretical concept to the ODMs, but certainly not to scripture. Which leaves me wondering… what is the big deal with this again?

  • Share/Bookmark

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 faithT. 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

  • Share/Bookmark

O NO3ZDid you know? The PD Church, the ECM, Oprah and the New Agers are in cahoots to create a one-world religion!!! O N03Z!


I heard it from Ingrid Schleuter and Brannon Howse on the interwebs, so it must be true! Right?

Ingrid recently did an interview of Brannon Howse’s radio show, where she tied together wacky power-of-positive-thinking, pop-psychology movies The Moses Code, new-agey The Shift, TM guru Eckhart Tolle, Oprah Winfrey, and other New Age ‘prophets’ with individual Christians, like Brian McLaren (who has a book called .. wait for it … “Everything Must Change”) and Rob Bell, and churches from Willow Creek to all of the “Emerging Church” (despite the fact that the ECM isn’t a monolithic entity) – which is part of the (cue the spooky music) “The Great Emergence”. “Contemplative Spirituality” is bringing demons into the Church! We MUST panic!

Neale Donald Walsch (”Conversations With God”) is one of the “high-level shills for The Antichrist”! Did you know that Walsch has a 5-point PEACE plan? Guess who else has a 5-point PEACE plan and a ’social gospel’? And Dennis Kucinich wants a cabinet-level “Department of Peace”. And guess who could institute it? Barak Obama, who many are hailing as a “new messiah”. You hear it first from Ingrid. We’d best all panic (or not panic, if you believe in a pre-trib rapture). And guess what – “you heard it first here”, says Ingrid – Oprah will be appointed to head the Department of PEACE.

With the Moses Code movie, people across the world are being asked to unite in a “global consciousness prayer” on April 5th for peace in the Middle East. These are New Age heathens, so what do they care about peace in the Middle East, unless it’s the beginning of a religious movement of such a scope as to send Tim LaHaye into fits of ecstasy. Peace in the Middle East? Joel Rosenberg, in his book, Epicenter has predicted that this will bring about Armageddon!

“This is no joke”, Ingrid jokes (without knowing it), explaining how you can go to a website where people teach about bending spoons with their mind. This is all the emergence of diaprax – the retraining of our children via their youth pastors, to do Christian yoga (”there’s nothing Christian about it”, says Howse), use contemplative prayer, walk labyrinths, and all of these emerging occultic practices. This will become the one-world religion of the last days, and Igrid and Brannon have cracked the code! Such great research!

Rob Bell wrote Velvet Elvis, in which he footnotes a book by Ken Wilbur! He must endorse EVERTHING Ken Wilbur believes! Heretic! This will lead to shambala, contemplative prayer, yoga, cats sleeping with dogs, mass hysteria! According to Ingrid, Bell, McLaren, Dan Kimball (Mr. Labyrinth) and the ECM are going to be the “cheerleaders” for the anti-christ. Bell even quotes Nelson Mandela (a communist!) – Marianne Williamson, in reality (a new ager) – (who cares that the quote is taken completely out of context and Bell is slandered in the process). In quoting Williamson, who is promoted by Oprah, Bell is supporting her channelling of demons, and ultimately bringing the antichrist here!


What utter hysterical foolishness tied together with lies and innuendo.

When viewing these things, the question becomes – is the right response to panic or to see that there is an opportunity to spread the Gospel in a world where people are seeing the need for a change in the way they live and operate? In the world of the chicken-little ODM’s, the response is apparently to bunker in and prepare for battle. Third-world microfinance, relief for those afflicted with AIDS, and any other causes/methods taken up by the ’secular’ world become immediately taboo, in a web of guilt-by-association.

Perhaps a separate way to look at these events is in the same lens viewed by 12 young men set loose by their Rabbi almost 2000 years ago. They went out into a Greek/Roman world in which many gods claimed virgin births and resurrections. These gods provided free medical care, food, water, clothing and community for people in that world through their temples. These young men, along with the Apostle Paul responded to the world, not through denunciation, fear-mongering and hysteria – but rather by preaching the truth of Christ, living in the Way of Christ, and allowing the Holy Spirit to convict the world of the truth.

Could the world end today? Sure. Could it end tomorrow? Yup. What might Jesus say in response to this?

“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear. Life is more than food, and the body more than clothes. Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds! Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? Since you cannot do this very little thing, why do you worry about the rest?

“Consider how the lilies grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith! And do not set your heart on what you will eat or drink; do not worry about it. For the pagan world runs after all such things, and your Father knows that you need them. But seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well.

“Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

“Be dressed ready for service and keep your lamps burning, like men waiting for their master to return from a wedding banquet, so that when he comes and knocks they can immediately open the door for him. It will be good for those servants whose master finds them watching when he comes. I tell you the truth, he will dress himself to serve, will have them recline at the table and will come and wait on them. It will be good for those servants whose master finds them ready, even if he comes in the second or third watch of the night. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into. You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.”

Playing “let’s panic”, pin-the-tail-on-the-antichrist, slandering Christians, and trying to read the newspaper in one hand with the Bible in the other is simply a recipe for failure in the mission of the kingdom.

icon for podpress  The Sky Is Falling: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
  • Share/Bookmark

It seems as if CRN will never tire of re-hashing the same old tired arguments concerning Rob Bell. The Editor claims this piece demonstrates the “propensity of Rob Bell of the emerging church to over-emphasize the humanity of Christ Jesus of Nazareth and turn our Creator into a first century rabbi.”

So does Rob Bell over-emphasize the humanity of Jesus? It seems like a very odd claim to me. After all Jesus was both fully God and fully man. There of course is much of this union that will always be a mystery to us. However to claim that Jesus didn’t learn, wasn’t at all affected by the culture He grew up, and somehow wasn’t quite all human seems to go against many of the details we’re given in the Gospels.

First, we aren’t given a lot of details about Jesus’ childhood and adolescent years. Luke 2:52 says, “Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.” This is the sum of the information we’re given about Jesus’ life between the ages of 12 and 30. Interestingly enough, this is the exact phrase used in 1 Samuel 2:26 to describe Samuel’s development while he served in the temple. It seems that Luke was trying to tell us something about Jesus’ education. It seems very likely that Jesus would have studied using the same methods as other Jewish children at the time.

The fact that Jesus was viewed as an average Jewish man prior to the beginning of His ministry is emphasized later in Luke 4. Jesus is at the synagogue in His hometown of Nazareth, and is asked to read (a very common practice for a Jewish man at sysnagogue), and He reads from Isaiah 61. After reading, we are told Jesus

“rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, and he began by saying to them, ‘Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.’ “

This outraged the people from His hometown. “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” they asked. It seems to me that they had no reason to suspect Jesus was anything but a common working man prior to this.

So, even from this brief look at Scripture, we get a picture of Jesus that paints Him as fully human. This in no way denies He was fully divine, but it does enforce that Jesus was a real person in history, in Israel, and entrenched in Jewish society at the time. Jesus wasn’t born with all Scriptures in His head. He worked to memorize them. He studied, and he humbled himself to learn from other people.

When we think of how much God humbled himself to live on this planet, it is truly amazing. So let’s not fall prey to an old heresy that Jesus only looked human. Let’s embrace the mystery of the Incarnation in it’s full beauty.

  • Share/Bookmark

Looks like the story is all in what we choose to report.  So, which is the truth, ODMs?   Is Driscoll the raving heretic or the reforming pastor?

  • Share/Bookmark