One might get the impression I dislike Tim Cantrell and that if we were to sit down at a dinner party together, we'd be unable to have a conversation that wouldn't quickly get heated and result in some vegetable throwing. Well, I've only met him twice and so don't know enough about him to form an opinion of the man. So let me be quite clear: I won't throw any vegetables at Tim at a dinner party (unless there's a tomato right within reach...I'd be tempted...a tomato's not a vegetable right? Darn. Can't remember. ::whack!:: Aaarrgh! He got me! I guess the food fight mantra is, "He who hesitates...receives the first thrown tomato in the head!"). I also won't throw eggs at his house...or sit outside his church on a Sunday morning with a paintball gun. I'd hope that if we ran into each other socially we'd be able to have a good conversation.

What does disappoint me is Tim's position on the emerging church. He obviously has quite an interest in the emerging conversation. He wants to say things that are accurate and true about it. He wants to warn people about the dangers around it (newsflash: I don't think that everything happening inside the conversation is good, either). I think he'd be able to offer a good critique to us, but he has yet to demonstrate that he understands what it is we're saying. The closest he's got is in his Today Magazine article:

"No one can deny that evangelicals have often failed in our passion for the lost, social concern, good works, deeds of love, abuse of power, abuse of Scripture, and lack of authenticity and humility."

Fantastic! Now we have common ground. Let's talk about not just the failures of evangelicals and Christianity, but also about how we got there (so we don't repeat the same mistakes) and how we go into the future, and how we might do that together. These are the sorts of conversations I love to have, because they move beyond the "I'm right, you're wrong, and if you aren't agreeing with me it's simply because you're not listening closely enough," to dealing with Tikkun Olam - the "putting the world to rights" - a phrase Tim's father introduced me to.

So when life throws a tomato at you, make tomato juice. And duck. Ducking helps.

Technorati Tags: criticism, emerging church, Tim Cantrell

 

--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

Dear Roger,
This is Glen Thompson, we knew each other at Honeyridge a few years ago, i trust you will recall. Without doing the 'tomato thing' & so at a purely 'conversational' level, would you care to comment on your feelings regarding Tim's other quotes he submitted in his 'taboo' article? Your points here, in all three of your articles, have been fair enough, but i do need to understand you better as to your personal views on Tim's other concerns. I assume you are free to speak your mind & share your heart in this conversation even if you offend me or some of your 'companions'. Forgive my ignorance, but I’m not all to familiar with every 'fresh' idea that 'emerges' on the theological scene. I'm currently pastoring a little Baptist church in PE & am dealing with 'grass roots' issues every day! People are desperate for their lives to make sense & their only hope is Christ! I'm, & that not due to reading Calvin, who i do endorse as sound, but from my searching the Scriptures, which i hold to be the only & inerrant Word of God, unashamedly Reformed in my theology! I would love to 'chat' (that is a 'type' & 'shadow' of 'converse') some time over coffee & that preferably face to face as i suck at the 'key board' thing! will you please respond to me soon as i would truly like to know where you are at in your current views! I am much on the same page as i was when you knew me, except for the fact that I have, hopefully, matured a little! I am also not interested in the whole tradition for traditions sake 'trip' & only want to do things Biblically! Sound hermeneutics are everything to me! I don't pretend to have arrived, but i do strongly hold to what i have come to be convinced of from the Sacred Text alone! My sole passion, with many cracks in it, is to glorify my Savior & Lord & to see all His elect come into His fold & be fed with the sole & sufficient truth of His sanctifying & sustaining Truth! May God search us & find us, while frail & broken, to be sound & serving His ends & not our own!
Every blessing in Christ & my prayers will be for us to meet soon & somehow hear each others hearts!
PS: I'm troubled by this whole matter! & don't write so as to be a 'wise guy'! Please honor my words here as sincere & my burden to be careful with the things that we all, I trust, hold as precious to be preserved from all corruption & the passing fads of our gravely confused & desperately sick world! In Jesus love & grace
Glen

reply to this comment

Posted by: Glen Thompson 17 Aug, 2007 - 10:14:58

Hi Glen

Thanks for your gentle questions. Of course I remember you!

"I love treehouses
Do you love treehou-ow-ow-ow-ses
Treehouses
In the springtime!

You can come on over
Pick a four leaf clover
...oh ke dover
You and I!"

Ah yes, good times!!! I even remember all of those chords - and watching you play this song helped inspire me to get my barchords right :)

I emailed Tim yesterday in fact, to tell him that very soon I'll be moving beyond my disagreement with *how* he approached his research and moving on to the actual issues he raises. I hope to probably not clear them up, but at least show a bit more of the context around what was said and bit more about the people that said them, and how others have dialogued with and reacted to them, and what impressions they have.

I hope it will be helpful. If at the end of this process I haven't cleared things up well enough, please let me know and I'll continue until we're both satisfied.

I think that a lot of the theologically controversial stuff can just be ignored, especially by us in SA. Even for those people who are deeply part of whatever the local "emerging church conversation" is, these issues are secondary and mostly unimportant. We don't see any of this stuff leading to heresy or leading people away from Christ. All of the guys would affirm the historical creeds, so we're not trying to create a new religion or to water down the Gospel or any of that stuff.

In other words, keep on doing what you're doing in PE. Do your people need to hear about the theological controversies? No, I really don't think so. But there *is* some really good stuff in this wider conversation, some things I'm sure you will find profitable. I'd recommend doing a google search on Mark Driscoll and reading some of his stuff.

Stay well!

reply to this comment

Posted by: Roger Saner 17 Aug, 2007 - 11:39:33

Hey Roger,

Thanks for your quick response. I will look forward to hear your take on the rest of Tim's dig at the 'Emergent' church movement! If I’m correct, he did seem to distinguish between the 'emergent' & 'emerging' church movements. Can you comment? Also, when you say that, "All of the guys would affirm the historical creeds, so we're not trying to create a new religion or to water down the Gospel or any of that stuff" you have included yourself (?) with 'all of the guys' or am I forcing your words beyond their intended scope? Roger, I’m concerned as either Tim Cantrell, who I do love dearly as a great Bible teacher & personal friend, is plain & outright wicked in his 'agenda', for he makes some strong statements, or these dudes he quotes are hectically heretical! & that going back to your seeming inclusion with ‘them all’ worries me! Help me here bro!
Thanks for your interest in conversing & I’m blessed that you remember Nick's song (with a few of my additions) 'Tree-houses'! Are you still jamming as much? Are you married? Kids? I'm married to a gorgeous babe Antje & have two fantastic little girls Amanda & Rachel (4 & 3 years old)

Be blessed!

In His love

Glen

reply to this comment

Posted by: Glen Thompson 17 Aug, 2007 - 12:05:32

Tim doesn't actually do a clear job of distinguishing between "Emergent", "emerging" and the emerging church conversation. He equates Emergent Village (Brian McLaren etc) to the global emerging church conversation and then unhelpfully dismisses the former, leading his readers to dismiss the latter. They are different!

He refers to Mark Driscoll as part of the emerging church conversation, then uses Driscoll's critique of Emergent as a critique against the whole conversation. I'd like to see Tim engage with Driscoll since they share theological views - rather than writing off the whole thing because of a few people.

I'll make all of this clear in a subsequent post. I don't think it's fair to force a dichotomy onto "either Tim is outright wicked in his agenda OR these guys are heretical." Tim hasn't yet done an adequate job of engaging with what the core of the movement is saying - again, I hope to make this clear later.

As for me, I have communities around me who will speak into my life if they see me veering off path. They are my primary "checkpoint" as it were.

"Them all" refers to people around the world: South America, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Holland, Switzerland etc. *This* is where much of the excellent stuff is happening, but lacks the marketing machine of the States. So far Tim has only read American writings on the emerging church - I'd want to encourage him to broaden his horizons.

Yes, I'm still playing! Learnt drums and am learning cello (really slowly). Single, no kids, and none I know about (!). Remember - I met Antje on the same night you did, at coffee after church :) Great news on the girls too :)

reply to this comment

Posted by: Roger Saner 17 Aug, 2007 - 12:44:45

Dear Roger,

I would like to stay, if you will permit, with the point I sought to make, & my deliberate ‘dogmatism’ respecting what you seemingly brushed off as a “dichotomy”.

“I don't think it's fair to force a dichotomy onto ‘either Tim is outright wicked in his agenda OR these guys are heretical.’"

My reason for this is that I don’t feel, & that without apology, that I’m being narrowly ‘black or white’ here but, really, quite logical.

In Tim’s article that we are discussing he made some firm & blatant accusations incriminating some of the more extreme, yet, seemingly, chief players in the ‘movement’. Now if what he said is accurate then we as Christ’s people must join together in an outright theological assault of these theological ‘fruit cakes’! I write purely upon the possibility of Tim being honest in his scholarship!

Now you have already sought to demonstrate his inconsistency with respect to ‘contextual exegeses’ in, I think, your second paper. Is he guilty, giving you the benefit of the doubt, of more of the same?

Or perhaps a combo-deal…does he misquote & then rightly quote etc. etc…& if so where exactly?

Roger, I do respect your ability to reason &, with that, your desire for time to respond with more exactness, but I also know that if one is well aware of their field of expertise, as you are without a doubt, & the key players within that field’s views, that this same one will be able to immediately ‘smell a rat’ & know, pretty much exactly, if the quotes against their ‘champions’ are authentic or fraudulent!

& so, again, I need to know if Tim (& Leigh Robinson & Frank Retief with him) when he quotes Rob Bell’s apparent (?) statement, “That it should not shake our faith if we found out ‘that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry... and that the virgin birth was just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in...’” Roger, if this is in context then let me go on record, with Tim, Leigh & Frank that I have some extremely serious reservations about the man’s spiritual condition, to put it gently!

Please affirm me here & say you agree with me that this, if not a misquote, is utter garbage! To tamper with the fully inspired apostolic integrity in their recording for us accurately all that Jesus did & said that, God deemed necessary & sufficient for us, comes perilously close to the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit!

Then he says of McLaren, that he states; “That we should shy away from describing the Bible in such terms as ‘the authority,’ ‘infallible,’ or ‘inerrant’”

Doe McLaren say this? Surely if he does you will at once agree that he would be at best liberal! The Scriptures are plain with respect to their authority, inspiration, inerrancy, clarity, necessity & sufficiency & that in their totality! This is the core fundamental orthodox doctrine & without it we are no better off than the Mormon’s with their comically erroneous documents, yet with a mere experience that cannot be shaken or taken from them! A ‘burning in their bosom,’ as they so put it.

Again he assaults poor Rob Bell & now with his wife (I assume) Kristen too, saying that they say, “That it is fine for leaders of the EC movement to frankly have no idea what ‘most of the Bible means’”. Now this is not okay at all! If what they mean by that, as I would assume, or why even bring it up, is that the Bible is a ‘mystery concealed’! We are to be corrected by all Scripture! How if we cant understand it? & How are we to entrust it if we don’t even know what we are ‘entrusting’?

I’m more than confident that you will be amen-ing my every word here! Or are you? You have said that all these guys hold to the historic confessions of the faith! Or let me not misquote you, see I’m learning, “All of the guys would affirm the historical creeds, so we're not trying to create a new religion or to water down the Gospel or any of that stuff.”

Now if this is a misquote of Tim’s then lets nail him! For he has embittered, or could embitter my heart against these faithful & godly brothers of ours! Let’s sink him good! For he is playing the role of Satan himself…that accuser of the brethren! Let’s take him to the cleaners!

reply to this comment

Posted by: Glen Thompson 18 Aug, 2007 - 02:47:43

Then he says, as if his malice had no end, that some of these friends in Christ, would dare assault God’s Word with the idea that that vile & perverse sin of homosexuality is okay! How can he even think they would say this? I mean, there are differences that are worth compromising for the sake of fellowship, but such a clear & irrefutable fact that, along with all other sin, & no worse, homosexuality, in its impenitent form, is somehow tolerated by God, is preposterous! Where does he get such things?

Now I assume you agree with me here Roger that while we are to love the homosexual, pedophile, gossip & thief, at the same time we are to tell them that they are in grave danger if they continue in such a stance! Where would love be if it sought to make a friend on earth & gain a popular hearing from the majority of confused people, yet neglect his soul that will never die?

I hope you are on the same page brother! If not then I need you to help me here with my exegesis! But I can read the Bible too, & it is beyond plain that this sin has its roots in God’s revealed wrath (Rom 1)!

I think Tim ‘pins’ this on poor McLaren again! I mean what has this dear soul done to big bad Tim? & he is kind of big!

The next one on “being saved”…you dealt with, & that, as far as I could tell, rather soberly! I can’t wait for your equally scholarly & transparent response to this note! For I’m confident you will well ease my concerns here too!

Now we go even deeper into the sticky stuff! According to brother Tim, brother Brian say’s, in Tim’s words, I think, “that the church should be inclusive about the eternal destiny of non-Christians & should change its historic belief in hell”
Hectic dude!!! What the hek is that? Hell is one thing, but the first point is another altogether! I definitely believe the Biblically teaching on hell! I don’t know the ‘historic’ one so I guess I’m safe. But the whole matter of Inclusivism is another ‘animal’ altogether! If Brian McLaren or anyone else with him says that people who are Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Roman Catholic, Mormon, Jew…etc. etc. even if they are sincere in their faith & seek their god from the bottom of their hearts, will, even maybe, go to heaven then he is a heretic!

Now the RCC one is a hot potato & yes there will be some in heaven but that by sheer default! The RCC is a cult & teaches salvation by faith + works which they happily affirm & for which they will sadly be condemned! (Gal 1:6-8)

Pinnock says that “God is doing more by way of redemption than what took place in first centaury Palestine” This is beyond what is here being stated but is the sad fruit of the ‘Billy Graham,’ ‘Joel Osteen’ subtleties that are so sadly destructive in the long hall! It would seem that, if Time is correct, McLaren in playing the same ‘accordion’ as these above stated. This would be a major point of departure for me! It should also be so for you!

Surely Tim cannot believe we will fall for the idea that someone would be so absolutely blasphemous so as to say, as he accuses Steve Chalke, forward by McLaren, “That you believe in ‘a form of cosmic child abuse’ if you say that Jesus died to pay the price demanded by His Father’s holy wrath”! Hello! Tim brother, we caught your bluff! Now we got you! Surely, Roger this is an outlandish lie! McLaren couldn’t endorse such a ‘sluttish’ handling of the Sacred Scriptures! I refuse to believe it!

If he does, however, then the man is dangerous! That is, of course, ‘if’ he imbibes this thinking that Chalke supposedly holds to & teaches! Does he?

& so, my friend, it is very late & I’m very tired, but this matter of either Tim being a total ‘chop’ & a real jerk in that, or these men & woman he quotes being heretical is, at least for me, quite obvious & no radical or unnecessary ‘dichotomy’!

His charges are strong! He, rightly or wrongly, attacks these folk & we must give a manly defense!

If Tim is up the pole lets sort him out, together, I’ll back you! Somebody’s got to be the ‘bad guy’ if the Bible is correct at all that is! Of course it is! Alternatively if McLaren &/or the others are off track & that as severely as Tim insinuates, then we must unite against them!

“Who is on the LORD’s side?”

All my love in Christ

Love to Heather (‘Feather-head’) & your folks!

Glen

reply to this comment

Posted by: Glen Thompson 18 Aug, 2007 - 02:48:25

Thanks for your comments, Glen - you write with much passion. I sense you getting increasingly angry and sarcastic in your comments above - am I misreading you? If you'd like a place to rant, can I suggest you get your own blog? ;)
Please don't put words in my mouth. I would never call - or insinuate - that Tim is, to quote *you* - "a total 'chop' and a real jerk." Let's leave out that sort of petty sniping - there is no place for it on this blog.

This is part of what I attempt to do in talking about a false dichotomy here: to not make this personal (in other words, "either Tim's an idiot and the emerging church is right, or Tim's great and the emerging church are heretics"). That isn't the argument upon the table. Even if I successfully show where Tim has been wrong, that doesn't make him "wicked in his agenda" - that would just make him wrong. I cannot comment upon Tim's motivations at this stage - I would only want to consider doing that after we've interacted over a longer period and I have a better sense of how he handles other questions. Let's leave out the ad hominem arguments.

The argument upon the table is twofold:
1 - has Tim done a fair job of representing the emerging church conversation?
2 - what about the specific charges he brings?

I have mostly replied to (1). Tim hasn't come close to touching what the core of the conversation is about, and until he takes time to do his research, he is not doing justice to his critique. Does he know that the core of the emerging church conversation is about ecclesiology, not theology, for instance?

I hope, over the next while, to respond to (2), specifically the McLaren ones, and Rob Bell. Have patience - I have a life outside of this blog!

reply to this comment

Posted by: Roger Saner 19 Aug, 2007 - 23:14:59

You have nailed your colours to the mast by writing off the Roman Catholic Church as a sect, and of Billy Graham (I don't know Joel Osteen well enough to comment - since the bit I've seen of him does not encourage me to listen to him more). If you have strong views of these 2 things, doubtless you'll have strong views on what I'll have to say, and I suspect you would disagree with most Christians anyway in their own faith and practice (women in ministry, spiritual gifts, the Bible (which, as you know, never uses these words about itself: ‘the authority,’ ‘infallible,’ or ‘inerrant’”), emerging church issues aside. My hope is that you're not like a good deal of Reformed people I know - who just seem to be so angry with everyone who is different from them. It's a pity that for people who talk so much about grace, no-one would describe them as "gracious". Be different!

Like Joshua Harris writes about Reformed people at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/september/42.32.html...
“You are so amazed by grace, you’re not picking a fight with anyone, you’re just crying tears of amazement that should lead to a heart for lost people, that God does indeed save, when he doesn’t have to save anybody.”

He says, "I’m sorry to say that [Calvinists] represented the doctrines of grace with a total lack of grace. They were spiteful, cliquish, and arrogant. I didn’t even stick around to understand what they were teaching. I took one look at them and knew I didn’t want any part of it."

I wonder if you're open to people disagreeing with your interpretation of the Bible, or if you *know* you have the *only correct way* of interpreting it? I simply don't understand why you would describe people who don't agree with your interpretation of Scripture as the "bad guys", or become "embittered" towards those you see as heretics? Even if you disagree with someone, there is a proper way to relate to them.

Is it possible you can disagree with me in a spirit of grace - tell me where you see me going wrong, but to do it in such a way that, when I reflect on how and what you said to me, I could say, "Wow, that was really Christlike?" That is my challenge - my invitation - to you.

reply to this comment

Posted by: Roger Saner 19 Aug, 2007 - 23:22:40

Just for the record (and in defence of the Reformed tradition - of which I am a member) Josh Harris is a Calvinist today. And there are plenty of Reformed folk out there who not only believe the doctrines of grace but also practice them. But Roger, I know you know that already (and so I'm not really contributing to this discussion) - just making sure everyone else does too. Grace to you all ;)

reply to this comment

Posted by: Stephen Murray 20 Aug, 2007 - 00:50:41

Thanks Stephen :) Sorry for the fuzziness on the differences between Reformed and Calvinists.

I'm trying to find a collective noun for Christians who just seem to be really angry towards other people. Would "fundamentalists" be a good one?

reply to this comment

Posted by: Roger Saner 20 Aug, 2007 - 01:15:48

Hey bro,

You must excuse me here as I thought this was a place where we could talk plainly!

Granted Tim knows this is supposed to be about ecclesiology & not other matters as you noted well, but then why do these guys say the things they do about these other matters & why are you so defensive all of a sudden?

Your tone was kind of sarcastic as well at first, or so I thought…the whole ‘Tomato’ thing & also the ‘gentle questions’ comment you made in your first response, not to mention your reply to Dave’s ‘humble opinion’…hello!

But this is not about me being ‘un-gracious’ with ‘brethren’ here, that is, if these guys are saying what Tim says they are! If they are, again IF, then they are a problem! & by the way although the Bible may or may not use the words Authoritative etc. etc. it definitely states, in no uncertain terms, the concepts in absolutely indisputable detail! & why do you even say this? What is your view? What is your agenda! So my colors are nailed to the mast…what do you believe? Or are you keeping in the safe zone, after all who cares to argue doctrine…right?

If you would like to grapple this more be my guest! The ‘woman in leadership not ministry’ thing & all other doctrines are important to me & evidently so to you as well, as they were a few years ago too. Only you wish to set the agenda with regards to the rules of engagement in debate! Paul is fervent in the Word & that not because he is an apostle but a saint. Christ too uses strong language & plain speech; I guess He would offend the modern man with his hypocritical intolerance for intolerance!

I’m neither a diplomat nor a politician, I’m called of God, & so are you, if you are so, to contend earnestly for the faith & rebuke sharply those who contradict it! Yes, to ‘speak the truth in love’ but this encompasses Matt 23 as well!!!

Does your concept of Christianity allow for this at all? Or is it all about “sharing” & not about me or someone else “preaching AT you”?

If you wish to have me leave this ‘blog’ of yours & find my own one, I don’t even know what a ‘blog’ is or how to find one or start one, but if that is your desire, then cheers!!!

I too have a life & that is why I’m again writing after midnight! I honestly thought this is how you guys interact, with a fearlessness of being contradicted & so forth…obviously I was wrong. We can all ‘dish it up’ but to ‘take it’ is another matter al together!

My concern is not to study the ‘Emerging’ or any other new type of church movement & it never has been so! Frankly, I couldn’t care less! God’s Word & ways are as relevant today as they were when they were first written! I purely looked you up so as to seek clarity on the whole matter of these heretical quotes & that due to hearing about your critique of Tim’s dealing with them. Then you brushed me off, as I still know you did, with this, sorry dude, pathetic ‘double talk’ compelling me to reiterate a necessary & obvious either/or handling of the subject at hand, that being Tim’s quotes or misquotes!

Incidentally, I’m not saying you said Tim is any of those things…’a chop’ etc! Read it slowly again three times & you will see that I am saying this, that is, if he is so grossly misquoting here. & I still maintain if he is then he is himself dangerous! I mean, come on, from your perspective, I’m a problem & somewhat dangerous as I’m so ungraciously speaking about the saints of God! This is so, that is, if you care enough to want to protect the flock from my kind of ‘condemning & ungracious Christianity’!

I’m not merely emotionless & your right I wrote & do still write with much zeal for the Lord’s glory, but I don’t think you will see it this way, that’s okay.

I am dogmatic & upon the backdrop of much modern theological thinking this is a great evil, believe me I know! But so be it! My Lord too was dogmatic & so were His disciples & so were theirs! To stand for the Truth is no crime, in fact to not do so is.

This has been shifted off the subject, by you ‘discerning’ my ‘lack of love’ & ‘grace’ & so I’m not going to waste my time with this any more! I’m not here to play games with all this silly nonsense!

Before I go, however, I would like to apologize for offending you with my way if it has been harsh or sarcastic to your ears. Hurting you was never my intention! But I make no apology for the things I’ve said or the intensity in which I have said them, for I meant them & do mean them completely!

Roger, this is not personal for me; it is however, & has always been, theological! Time will tell…Christ or hell!

If I’m overly zealous & ungracious then, again, forgive me! But I don’t know if I am!

reply to this comment

Posted by: Glen Thompson 20 Aug, 2007 - 03:13:05

The things Tim claims, I believe! You have helped me to that end, & that due to your ‘biting’ all the ‘baited hooks’ I cast so as to ‘fish’ for answers between the lines. I also know Tim well & also Leigh. These are men of God that have always sought to honor the Word of God & the God of that Word in a spirit of gentleness & integrity.

Their ambition is not to ‘shock’ the existing Church that so desperately needs the age old Gospel, in the broad sense of that word, that is, the entire Bible! & that is more than I can say for some of the guys, names aside for this one, unless upon request, that I have had dealings with over the years.

If Christ’s Church is precious to me & her health & purity to be fearlessly guarded, is that an evil?

I can handle it when people differ with me, more than you think! But some, evidently you included, can’t handle it if I stand dogmatically for my case! Oh, so that’s it…we must not really care about this ‘stuff’ it’s all just interesting & cool & fun to be part of a ‘conversation’!

Well that is not the way the Word of God commands us to handle these vital matters, which, incidentally, if not authoritative…then not His Word…He is our Boss & God & King & so all He says, if He says it, is Him saying it… hence Boss speaking…hence AUTHORITY speaking…& yes I’m heated now, so what, the subject demands no less!!!

I love the Lord & His perfect word & ways! If we are ashamed of Christ or His Word’s before this adulterous & perverse generation then He will too be ashamed of us at His coming! Oh no, hark!!! Did ‘gentle Jesus’ say ‘ad-d-d-dultrous…?’

I’m content, in His grace, in Christ alone, to face Him with great joy! But I will tell you my friend that the man who tells the homosexual all is well, the one who teaches the people of God that there is another Way besides the cross & the one who takes a word from or adds a word to this final & infallible Revelation, the Bible, will have all hell to recon with at that terrible day & no amount of clever academic anthropocentric reasoning will suffice to withhold ‘the wrath of the Lamb’!

reply to this comment

Posted by: Glen Thompson 20 Aug, 2007 - 03:15:39

I end with a quote from the Word of God, with one or two comments of my own.

“All (totality/entirety…Compare this with verse 10 ff, if you want to pull the, ‘this is only about the OT’ card. Also compare this with Paul’s awareness of Luke’s, already written gospel, & the fact that he calls this Scripture in 1 Tim 5:18, & see also 2 Pet 3:16) Scripture is breathed out (inspiration) by God (authoritative) & profitable (necessity) for reproof, for correction, & for training in righteousness, (clarity, inerrancy – you can’t show up a ‘skew’ line with another one! & neither can you train in ‘righteousness’ with ‘All Scripture’ if any of it is faulty! On the side, if it is ‘breathed out by God’ surely you will agree, God doesn’t have ‘bad breath!’) that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (Sufficiency – unless you wish to do a ‘bad work’ you needn’t look further). I charge you in the presence of God & of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living & the dead, & by his appearing & His kingdom: preach the Word; be ready in season & out of season; reprove, rebuke, & exhort, with complete patience & teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching (doctrine), but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers (there are plenty to choose from ‘accumulate’ - see also Matt 7:13-29 – ‘many’) to suit their own passions, & will turn away from listening to the truth (incidentally, this, in context, is used as a synonym for “All Scripture” & “the Word” & “sound teaching” & that as being in conformity to the once for all given, then, apostolically revealed Word, for which I encourage you to read 1st & 2nd Tim in one sitting & note all the times Paul says Timothy is to ‘guard the deposit’ of sound word’s ‘entrusted’ (past tense) to him & pass this, & this alone, on to faithful men who will be able to teach others also! Then check the content of these epistles & ask yourself the ‘million dollar question’, ‘what would Timothy have understood & what would he have, then, passed on &, so, what was Paul so heated about &, so, what should we too be zealous to guard in this godless age in which we live?’) & wander off into myths. (The instant one leaves the Word for anything else they are, of absolute necessity, immediately left to their own madness & folly – The way that ‘seems right’ to a man, of which Proverbs speaks, indeed, the end of which is ‘death’)”

Take care!

&, in spite of the fact that you feel attacked right now, which is probably somewhat understandable, I nonetheless do care for you brother & will be praying for you to stand boldly for that which Paul & Timothy & countless others before & after them too stood for & even died for!

Please do send my regards to your family &, unless you want me to reply, don’t write back!

Keep well

In Jesus love

Glen

reply to this comment

Posted by: Glen Thompson 20 Aug, 2007 - 03:17:14

I'm sorry Glen for not being clear enough, but you've misread me. If you sit down with me in person you'll see that. I meant it when I thanked you for your "gentle questions" - how could I not? Your first post was gentle and humble, and I really appreciated it.

The tomato thing was *completely* tongue in cheek! Tim wrote back to me to say he wouldn't throw tomatoes at me either! Which is great - maybe we'll have to get into a different sort of food fight!

My interaction with Dave has always been honest and not sarcastic. If you doubt that, I suggest you contact him yourself and ask about your impression of me, for I'm afraid you have misread my tone in 3 separate situations. And if you have misread me in those times, what else have you misread?

To respond to everything else you have said here will take me many hours, which I'm not going to do. I will continue my response to Tim on this site, though. Let me clarify the top points from your last 3 comments:

1 - I'm not against your dogmatism. However, when you come across as angry, I believe we've crossed a line in debate which, although you may be happy to go there, I am not. When someone gets angry with someone else during a debate, I see that as they're unable to master themselves, and the fact of that anger changes the nature of the debate. Hence me challenging you to be different.

Maybe you're ok being angry in a debate. Ok fine, but I'm obviously not, and the fact of your anger gets in the way of our communication. Even if you believe you are correct to do that, surely if you see that something you are doing is hindering the debate, you'll think about changing that so we can communicate properly? My challenge again is: can you be dogmatic without being angry? In your first post you were! :)

2 - my suggestion for getting your own blog is only if you want a place to rant. Go do a google search on "rant" and try to understand why bloggers don't like ranters on their own blogs.

3 - in terms of you not caring less about the emerging church, good. If this stuff isn't useful, ignore it. I'm still in the process of dealing with Tim's article - see my post today: http://www.futurechurch.co.za/item/emergent-or-divergent-part-4-truth-scripture-and-clarity...

4 - lets agree to keep this specifically to what this post was all about, and my intention in responding. As I've written above, the argument upon the table is:
- has Tim done a fair job of representing the emerging church conversation?
- what about the specific charges he brings?

5 - in terms of my "discerning your lack of love and grace", please reread that. I'm saying that I've dealt with some people in this way before, they seem to have a lack of grace, you - at this stage - seem to be going the same way. My invitation: please don't!

Keep well

reply to this comment

Posted by: Roger Saner 20 Aug, 2007 - 11:32:51

Short & sweet…it’s the ‘anger’ & ‘rant’ thing that you read into my ‘passion’ for the truth, as I see it, that has clouded your mind to these, at least in my previous response that you nailed, ‘tongue in cheek’ comments…about ‘big bad Tim’ & so forth.

But I still stand my ground.

I asked Antje to read my response this morning & she, while in complete agreement with all I say & even the ‘true way’ I meant it, nonetheless noted a typical fault of mine, namely, that I almost always end every sentence with an exclamation mark! See! I’m doing it again…!!!

Then if I want to express myself I need three of them, as above. Maybe this adds color to my complexion in your minds eye.

Look here we both have a ton of stuff to do so let’s let bygones be bygones.

Keep on your thing.

Cheers

Glen

PS: Does this sound cooler? Note the exclamations.

reply to this comment

Posted by: Glen Thompson 20 Aug, 2007 - 12:00:46

Thanks - it's often difficult to assess tone on the internet, so clarification is good. Btw, you haven't responded to my saying that you've misread me 3 times - what do you say about that?

reply to this comment

Posted by: Roger Saner 20 Aug, 2007 - 12:45:54

Hi all

Hi Glen, it's Dave from Honeyridge days - how you keeping bro!? Sue and I still going strong - nearly 6 years now. No kids yet - in God's time.

Just to put my 2 cents worth in the fray, so to speak.

I think that in this discussion, the key to for both of you guys to try to understand exactly what it is that each of you are trying to say, say it slowly, carefully, gently. Find common ground (such as I know that both of you stand on the authority of the Bible) and work slowly from there, one issue at a time. Keep to one issue at a time and let God work in the conversation. The internet can be a very frustrating place to try to converse.

Glen, you know that you and I share Doctrinal beliefs very strongly. But Rog and I have been having some awesome email conversations over different issues, and iron sharpen iron hey man!!!!! Both of you are dear friends and may this humble word of mine help both of you.

Glen, BTW (means By The Way in blog-talk) I have a blog here dave1314.wordpress.com. Come along a we can chat as well. Will be great catching up.

reply to this comment

Posted by: dave 20 Aug, 2007 - 13:34:02

Thanks Dave, that's helpful stuff :)

reply to this comment

Posted by: Roger Saner 20 Aug, 2007 - 13:44:17

Hey Dave brother.

So cool to hear you’re well & still on fire for our messiah.

Please say hi to Sue from Antje & I & the monkeys. I have two little sweethearts as you have probably heard, in my first note to Roger above.

I may sometime 'blog' you?!?!

But I fear my extreme personality gets all wrapped up in this too much. It’s all still new to me & the World has come alive through the internet for me only recently.

All my love in Jesus bro.

Glen

PS: Roger I’m sorry for misunderstanding you on two of those points not three. The tomato one was exactly as I thought. Granted I started with a bias & ended with it confirmed. & so the 'sarcasm' or 'tongue in cheek' style in which I wrote. We do differ in many things but if Dave is right about your high view of Scripture then we can go along way with respect to exegesis & hermeneutics maters & so forth. But honestly I think this is all too time consuming for me & I feel I’m too radically reformed to play in this wonderfully wide pond. So please excuse me from this as I’m quite burdened with this all & do take it very much to heart. I only want to see Christ glorified & wish I was less offensive so that I could have a larger influence...God knows I’ve tried to behave to no avail it would seem. Anyway, as I said, you all have a nice day now & remember 'don’t drink or chew or especially go with girls that do.' That was a reaction to the 'fundamentalist' comment earlier, but I’m saying it with a smile. Fundamentalists irritate me as much as anybody. I'm relaxing with a glass of wine as I type, having had about 2-3 hours sleep & feeling like a zombie in an outhouse, so peace brothers.

Keep the 'blogs' alive.

Cheers

& Roger, I will throw a tomato at you if I catch you in the street alone after bed time...so BEWARE!!!!! Sorry I needed an exclamation mark or two to remind me I’m still alive! (Note no exclamation marks above.)

reply to this comment

Posted by: Glen Thompson 20 Aug, 2007 - 14:35:10

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