([EDIT (23 August 2007)]: I've just realised that "misquoting" someone means you say they said something which they actually didn't. Tim has not done this with any of the quotes he's used in his article, and I apologise to for implying he did (mental note: check meaning next time!). My thought is that he ignored the context of the quotes, which I believe shifted the meanings away from what the two short quotes imply.)

I've been privileged to listen to many sermons in the church Cantrell currently pastors. During each sermon we'd have Bibles in our hands, and when the preacher spoke from a passage, we'd all open it and read it together. This was so we'd know he wasn't making anything up - we had gone back to the source to see what it actually said.

I hope Cantrell keeps up that same tradition in his church, and not just in dealing with Scripture. I hope he encourages his people to go back to the source and to check context, whether it's with the Bible or with something an author wrote in a book or a journalist on a website. Otherwise, as he knows, we can take something out of context and make it mean something else - often revealing our own agenda in the process.

Technorati Tags: Brian McLaren, criticism, Emergent, emerging church, Tim Cantrell, Today Magazine

Cantrell writes that one of the "deadly doctrines that leaders of the Emerging Church are teaching" is: "That we should not be so concerned with 'being saved' or finding 'right answers'...(Brian McLaren, Today Magazine, March 2007, p. 56). "

This is a weighty charge, for in essence he's saying that the emerging church is saying, "It's not important to be saved," and "right answers don't really matter." Luckily I have a copy of the article which was sent to Today Magazine for their March issue. Let's see what the offending bits say:

Emerging Christians across the country are finding innovative ways to:
live the Gospel, as disciples engaged in saving the world rather than as churchgoers focused on "being saved.”
interpret theology, favoring an open-ended, questioning approach to doctrine rather than a rigid concern with "right answers”;

McLaren is saying that emerging Christians realise that Christianity isn't all about going to church and making sure that I am saved, because I am not the centre of the Gospel (one of the problems of our modern world is individualism). It's about getting out into the world and getting our hands dirty (ecclesiologically, it's rooting the Church into the Abrahamic Covenant: "I will bless you so that you will be blessing"). He is also saying that it's okay to have questions about theology and doctrine and to not have it all wrapped up in a nice neat package.

There certainly cannot be a reading of this which claims that we shouldn't be concerned about being saved. There cannot be a reading of this which ways that we shouldn't bother finding right answers.

So interesting, Cantrell reveals his agenda by misquoting McLaren. He takes him out of context, quotes the offending bits, makes them say something else, and then warns us against what McLaren is saying. Cantrell's agenda is to discredit the emerging church and it seems that he doesn't mind slanting someone else's words to do that.

I want to say very clearly: this is not a good way of doing interpretation. I'm very sure Cantrell doesn't do this with Scripture - I'd want to encourage him to not do this with other things.

--x--
This post is a part of a series of responses to an article in the August 2007 edition of Today Magazine written by Tim Cantrell (available online). The full series is:
Emergent or Divergent?
Part 2: When is misquoting someone and ignoring context ok?
Part 3: Tea break (and why I won't throw vegetables at Tim)
Part 4: Truth, Scripture and Clarity
Part 5: Rob Bell and denying the Virgin Birth
Part 6: Emergent, Emergent Village and the emerging church conversation
Part 7: Clarity vs Mystery

 

Interesting, I came to the same conclusion as Tim on reading that article - I don't think that he has taken it out of context - he has paraphrased it. But that's just my humble opinion. ;)

reply to this comment

Posted by: dave 15 Aug, 2007 - 00:05:59

I think that church should be principly based on Act 2:42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
Having received that teaching, we are then to go out into the world to save people. We want and need 'right answers' when we are at church, so that we can go out and fulfill the great commission.

reply to this comment

Posted by: dave 15 Aug, 2007 - 00:14:01

Thanks for your humble opinion, Dave! I'm still not sure how you can get to "they don't care about right answers" from something which is talking about not having a rigid concern with right answers.

The issue here isn't actually "right answers" but rather the "rigid concern" with them...as fundamentalists tend to have.

reply to this comment

Posted by: Roger Saner 15 Aug, 2007 - 00:35:04

And of course we need right answers! Postmodernists are simply calling into question the right answers we already have, and how they've led to so much evil...like the "right answer" of enmeshing Gospel and Empire, and the "right answer" of colonising the world with the help of Jesus...the "right answer" of theological justification for apartheid (which, by and large, the church in South Africa has not repented of at a grassroots level)...the "right answer" of keeping our private beliefs separate from our public practice...

Of course we're saying Jesus is the answer - the problem is in the questions that are asked, and the ways in which the "answers" are held and lived - <i>especially</i> if we think they're ours to possess.

Like the Congan theologian, Mabiala Kenzo, says, "I believe the truth. I don't <i>have</i> the truth."

reply to this comment

Posted by: Roger Saner 15 Aug, 2007 - 00:39:18

Roger, Roger, Roger... your response to Dave lacked the incisiveness it truly deserved. I agree with your response, but here is what Dave needs to hear.

Dave,

Why do you insist on proof texting Acts? Acts 2:42 is a heading for a short passage about the early church did.

Here is the full reference, so you can save yourself the trouble of looking it up:
Acts 2:42-47
42 They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
43 Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles.
44 All the believers were together and had everything in common.
45 Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.
46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,
47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
(NIV)
Why quote only verse 42?

What's wrong with signs and wonders (I know Tim does not have these at his church - why not?)

Why not talk about "having everything in common"?

Why not talk about meeting in homes?

Why not do it "every day"?

These are the types of questions that EC Christians are asking. Not because they don't take the Bible seriously, or couldn't care about being saved, or don't want to find answers. Rather, we ask these questions PRESICELY BECAUSE we are taking our Bible VERY seriously, precisely BECAUSE we want to know the FULL implications of what it means to be saved, and precisely BECAUSE we want to find out what God really intends for us!!

reply to this comment

Posted by: Graeme 22 Aug, 2007 - 21:03:37

Hi Graeme,

I began my ministry at Honeyridge two years ago with an eight part, in-depth exposition of Acts 2:42-47, interpreting it in its original context so that we can know what does apply for today and what doesn't. Anybody is welcome to contact our office and order those CDs.

Blessings,

Tim

reply to this comment

Posted by: Tim Cantrell 22 Aug, 2007 - 22:54:13

Thanks Gramea

Appreciate your input, and I agree, that sort of question is valid and I will follow up with my own study as well. Many thanks

God bless
Dave

reply to this comment

Posted by: dave1314 23 Aug, 2007 - 04:17:15

Hi Graeme

Sorry for the typo - dark room and couldn't see my keyboard properly!! How you been keeping brother? Thanks for your questions in general - they really help me to return to Scripture to interpret them correctly. I am currently starting a mini-exegesis of the Gospel of John at my blog site dave1314.wordpress.com so would appreciate your input there as well.

God bless
Dave

reply to this comment

Posted by: dave1314 23 Aug, 2007 - 04:36:16

Another PPS

Please bear in mind have a full Family Practice as a doctor, so my replies may be short and far between, but take to heart and attempt honest review, all criticism and suggestions. Thanks again.
Dave

reply to this comment

Posted by: dave1314 23 Aug, 2007 - 04:38:56

Dear Graeme I have had time to both reflect on the passages under discussion, and had time to think about your response/statement to me. As I already said, you have valid points and thank you for those. However, there are a few things I need to say. Firstly, if you look at any of my comments, they are NEVER laced with sarcasm, and have ALWAYS been given in the spirit of humility wishing to know the Bible better, as do you. What really does disappoint me is the tone of your response and some of the content. You are a pastor/teacher, am I not correct? What is your Biblical mandate as one? Is it not to instruct, rebuke and enable those believers to grow in the faith? Your response had absolutely nothing of that. My statements were made purely from point of view of wishing to learn more. I may have perceived your tone wrong, and please correct me if I do and I ask your forgiveness if I have. HOWEVER, the way that your response came across was facetious and sarcastic (ROGER, Roger, Roger.......). If you truly want me to learn more about the Word of God in relation to the conversation about the EC, then TEACH about it, don't simply throw questions at me and others - perhaps they are thrown with a little more than Roger's great sense of humor about tomotoes etc. YOU are a pastor teacher, if I am needing guidance, then GIVE IT, don't just throw questions. Anyone with an IQ of 50 can throw questions (and I know that your IQ is way above that), and if that the way the conversation is going, then I am no longer a part of it. I have entered his discussion with a sincere heart, with humility and a real desire to understand the EC - as I have stated before. However, if you are simply going to throw questions at me all the time without bothering to TEACH or DIRECT in any way, then you have lost one of the few conservative mainstream Christians who has TRULY been trying to understand and follow the EC. Again, if I have mis-understood you, please forgive me and correct me - "My dear children...", "You foolish Galatians...". I am open to that. But the point still remains, if you are simply going to misunderstand my so-called 'prooftexting' and not going to try to TEACH and DIRECT as a pastor that you are, then I will either no longer listen to your ideas or I will simply start throwing questions at you guys. I am NOT that kind of person - you know me, as does Rog. BUT, my comments above stand. If I have offended you or the Lord, then I need rebuke from a Biblical basis and will stand corrected. But the essence of my complaint remains - please don't just throw questions at me, try to be what God has called you to be and give answers or at least link to answers that you have given previously. Dave

reply to this comment

Posted by: dave1314 25 Aug, 2007 - 13:24:28

An Addendum Graeme, I asked Sue to review my answer to see if I am being unreasonable, and she says that I was I bit harsh - sorry for that, please forgive me. I have finally formed my opinions on the EC. I understand now better than you think. My conversation about it is over. If I ever quote Scripture or make any statement about it, all I will receive is a barrage of doubt-laced questions, and I will never receive honest Biblical opinions. So, from Furturechurch, I now sign-off. May God's Truth ALWAYS be proclaimed in certainty and clarity. May our awesome, mighty, phenomenal and beautiful God ALWAYS BE GLORIFIED - after all, true Christianity is about bringing God glory. I don't actually care any more about 'cultural relevance', 'seeker-sensitivity', blah, blah, blah. All that matters to me is that God be glorified and that His kingdom come, His will be done, that He would sovereignly draw people to himself using us as incapable, carnal, weak vessels for HIS GLORY ALONE. HIS GLORY ALONE. Dave

reply to this comment

Posted by: dave1314 25 Aug, 2007 - 14:25:38

Sorry Dave - I think you’ve completely misread Graeme. His comments weren’t sarcastic at all. In fact, I wondered which comment of his you were referring to as I had to read it several times! And even wondered if maybe you’d emailed him and were responding to an off-site comment? To be honest, I have no idea where your response came from. Your first 3 comments were on the ball, and suddenly *WHAM*! Out of nowhere! A left hook! He floored him! I think Graeme’s questions are good, and I couldn’t detect any sarcasm directed towards you in them. Doh! Are you asking Graeme to do a full exegesis of the Acts passage in his comments on that item *before* he’s allowed to ask you questions? Tim spent his first 8 Sundays at Honeyridge preaching on that passage - do you expect Graeme to do the same? Just some questions :) And yes, I’ve love to hear your comments on the rest of the Acts passage - and, to quote Tim, which bits do and don’t apply to today.

reply to this comment

Posted by: Roger Saner 27 Aug, 2007 - 07:59:48

Dave wrote: “If I ever quote Scripture or make any statement about it, all I will receive is a barrage of doubt-laced questions, and I will never receive honest Biblical opinions.” Dave, that’s disappointing. You’ve received *one* comment about a piece of Scripture you quoted, and to equate that to “all I will ever receive” quite simply isn’t fair. If you spent some time going through the rest of the site you’ll find some “honest Biblical opinions” It would be a pity to see you go, especially because you’re one of the few people I know about locally who is critical - but is actually trying to understand “it”.

reply to this comment

Posted by: Roger Saner 27 Aug, 2007 - 08:00:31

Dave, Thanks for your response. I enjoy the engagement and interaction. A few responses (and I promise, I won't throw a question mark into this comment at all :-)... Firstly, when I am writing my own blog entries, I am fairly straightforward and direct. I do not feel the need to "teach" when I am engaged in a string of conversation in relation to someone else's blog entry. So, your point about only asking questions *would* be valid, if that's all I did. But it isn't. Check out my subsite on this blog for more... Secondly, asking questions IS a valid teaching device, known as the Socratic method. Socrates, followed by Plato, used it to change the course of Western thought forever. So, asking good questions IS actually a valid device. (But, now I'm just messing with you a bit :-). Thirdly, you completely misread my tone. I wasn't being sarcastic at all. (I started with "Roger, Roger, Roger... mainly because I know him well enough to do that. I then started my response to you with "Dave..."). Enough said. Fourthly, I am not a pastor. Not by training, nor by gifting, nor by vocation. Fifthly, this was my first response to you. I don't know how you can say that "all I do" is fire questions back at you. Sixthly, read my blog. Lastly, you did not offend me. Nor have you done so now. You have confused me with your speed of disengagement (without even answering my questions :-), but offended me - no.

reply to this comment

Posted by: Graeme 27 Aug, 2007 - 11:47:56

Tim,

I bought a copy of your series on Acts. I am now listening to it in my car. I am on the third message already. Its good stuff.

However, you don't seem to have specifically dealt with the question I raised above: why do we focus on Acts 2:42 and not require the actions and activities of the rest of the chapter? You may answer this in a later sermon, so I'll come back to this point in a few days - but for now I can't see you explaining specifically why we don't need signs and wonders in our churches, why we shouldn't specifically focus on the care of widows and orphans as a "Sign of a spirit filled church" and why we should not get into income redistribution amongst our members as a "fingerprint" of a great church.

You did mention in passing in the first sermon that the signs and wonders were to verify the teaching of the Apostles. This seems to indicate that you are cessationist in your beliefs (I do not know this for sure, but this is the classic line of cessationists, so its a guess). Even assuming we could agree to disagree on this issue, how do you explain away the income redistribution and care of widows and orphans?

If you DO address this later in the series, then just ignore this question. I'll get there in the next few days.

PS - I have never heard you preach before. I like your style and approach.

reply to this comment

Posted by: Graeme 27 Aug, 2007 - 11:58:56

Dave,

No question marks...

I believe that it is fairly dubious to use the book of Acts as a manual for church praxis in the 21st century. Not because I don't believe its God's Word (puh-leeze), but for a number of (I think) good reasons, including: if the signs were to verify the Apostles, it is strange that other people performed them, too - this can't have been their only function. There is no record of signs and wonders performed by some of the NT writers (e.g Luke). Some gifts persist to this day, yet not valid reason is given why some do and some don't. BTW - these are standard cessationist arguments and counter arguments. I suggest that the major issue most fundamentalists have with EC believers is that we have different hermeneutic methods.

I believe that insofar as Acts 2 can (possibly, for the sake of argument) act as a model for expressions of church today, we have no right to cherry pick which parts of this chapter apply to us and which don't. Therefore, I believe that churches should be preaching AND LIVING OUT more actively verses 43 through to the end of the chapter!!

I believe that there is no valid and consistent hermeneutic that can lead you to using Acts 2:42 as a model for church, while not looking at the other verses in the chapter in the same light.

I believe that the approach that focuses on Acts 2:42 creates fundamentally selfish and "what's in it for me" Christians. Its all about studying the Bible, praying, worship and interacting with people I like. Its safe. Its nice. Its easy.

I believe that it is possibly that when the Bible talks of those who deceive people with clever words and nice sounding theologies COULD in fact be those that have made church nothing more than a religious club of holy Bible-studying saints. Its easy for these people to say that they, as holy saints, have chosen the "tough" road of standing against culture. But really they haven't. There's nothing tough about their church going activities - the world couldn't care about them, and ignores them almost completely!! The tough bit is trying to live your Christian life out in a way that engages with culture, and with poverty and with disease and with all the ravages of evil in the world, and tries to bring God's Kingdom light into that darkness.

I believe that people in traditional / Reformed / evangelical / Bibe-deist churches (choose your label - none are truly accurate) are in serious danger of their eternal souls. I say this on the basis of Matthew 25. If some of those people are concerned for my salvation, I am more concerned for theirs!!

I believe that I am finding God, finding my faith, and finding God's purpose for me and for all His children in the emerging church. No, we haven't got everything right, but we've got things a lot less wrong than the churches I grew up in.

Is that clear enough for everyone? (Sorry, that was a question).

reply to this comment

Posted by: Graeme 27 Aug, 2007 - 12:24:21

Dear Graeme Thank you so much for that blog that you have placed. I really do appreciate your candor and everything you said. We do have much common ground and your response has made me think much much more than the initial one did - personal preference again! Your response has brought me back again to the Bible with fresh eyes and with a heart wanting to learn more from it and with a desire to live my life in my current situation as close to what Christ would want it to be as possible. If I had a wonderful doctrinally sound theology that I simply kept to myself and a few others without it letting me influence the way I live my life, then I would also question whether I am truly saved, because a life that has been saved by God MUST reflect that salvation in the way it lives that life. I want my consulting rooms to have the ‘fragrance of Christ’ as Leigh Roibinson once put it. I want to impact the patients that I see for God’s glory. If I don’t, my faith is seriously questionable. My deepest desire is to know God more in order to help humanity more in order to glorify God. In that order. Thank you again for your response, thank you for being gracious, thank you for your transparency and helpfulness. God bless In Him Dave

reply to this comment

Posted by: dave1314 28 Aug, 2007 - 18:30:32

Dear Graeme Thank you so much for that blog that you have placed. I really do appreciate your candor and everything you said. We do have much common ground and your response has made me think much much more than the initial one did - personal preference again! Your response has brought me back again to the Bible with fresh eyes and with a heart wanting to learn more from it and with a desire to live my life in my current situation as close to what Christ would want it to be as possible. If I had a wonderful doctrinally sound theology that I simply kept to myself and a few others without it letting me influence the way I live my life, then I would also question whether I am truly saved, because a life that has been saved by God MUST reflect that salvation in the way it lives that life. I want my consulting rooms to have the ‘fragrance of Christ’ as Leigh Roibinson once put it. I want to impact the patients that I see for God’s glory. If I don’t, my faith is seriously questionable. My deepest desire is to know God more in order to help humanity more in order to glorify God. In that order. Thank you again for your response, thank you for being gracious, thank you for your transparency and helpfulness. God bless In Him Dave

reply to this comment

Posted by: dave1314 28 Aug, 2007 - 18:31:12

Sorry for the double entry - don't know how that happened, I submitted it once - computers can be interesting objects! Graeme, talking about wanting to learn more, I would appreciate your views on the questions I have raised on my blog as I am working my way through the Gospel of John. This is nothing controversial or emerging, just plain ole me learning the Word, but interaction there would be great as well. {Note, subsequent to the 'clearing of the air' (was that Pumba??????), I am still posting.} Thank you.

reply to this comment

Posted by: dave1314 28 Aug, 2007 - 18:45:23

Dave, excuse my ignorance / laziness. Please let me have your blog address.

reply to this comment

Posted by: Graeme 01 Sep, 2007 - 11:23:35

Dave's address is http://dave1314.wordpress.com/

reply to this comment

Posted by: r0g3r 03 Sep, 2007 - 09:19:30

Warning: Parameter 1 to NP_Captcha::event_FormExtra() expected to be a reference, value given in /home/futurech/public_html/old/admin/libs/MANAGER.php on line 319

Name:
Email / URI:
Remember Me

Subscribe for email updates updates

Click here to manage subscription