Honeyridge Biblical Worldview Conference today, and especially those who are very concerned about me personally. To you I extend an invitation: phone me, take me out for coffee, ask me if I really believe in those things which Gary Gilley brought up at the conference. No longer can I pretend I'm fine around you, and that I'm not concerned you think I'm a really dodgy person who is going to hell. I can no longer engage in pleasant conversation with you, wondering if even now you praying for my salvation. So take me out to coffee and ask me if I deny truth (I don't). Ask me if I deny the authority Scripture (I don't). Ask me if I believe in the Virgin Birth (I do). Ask me if I believe Jesus is the light of the world (I do). Ask me if I deny propositional truth (I don't). Ask me if I believe in the Gospel (I do). And ask me many other things too - I welcome and invite those questions. And in the meantime, read my post, "What I am not saying."

I'm sure you know all about the dangers of taking something out of context, so I can rest easy knowing you'll actually go and find those Brian McLaren and Rob Bell quotes which Gilley referred to today. I know you'll read them in context, and I know you'll do this thoughtfully, because anything less would be to believe something second hand without checking for yourself. I know you don't do that with Scripture, so I know you'll apply that same approach to the emerging church movement. I know you recognise propoganda when you see it. I know you won't just take someone's word for it, but you'll check with the source. I know you don't mindlessly consume what your pastor feeds you - I know you sift through it and always ask God to illuminate the truth, and to let the rest fall away. And I know you do all this in an attitude of grace. And I know that you would affirm the following quote from Scot McKnight:

In order to define this [emerging church] movement, there is a correct method to follow. Which is where I want to go now: to define a movement we must, as a courtesy, let it say what it is or describe it until the other side says “Yes, now you’ve got it.” To define a movement, we must let the movement have the first word. We might, in the end, reconceptualise it - which postmodernists say is inevitable - but we will should at least have the courtesy to let a movement say what it is.

How many of you would tolerate an Arminian defining Calvinism by reducing it to “irresistible grace” or even TULIP? or of calling all of Calvinsim “hyper-Calvinism”? I think folks like you should get to define what you think, and I think the emerging folks should be given the same privilege.

And so, knowing that I'm going to have a lot of free coffee over the next month, I should be able to rest easy tonight. I hope I shall.

Technorati Tags: Scot McKnight, Gary Gilley, Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, emerging church

Hey Roger!

Some thoughts (applying the concept in my last comment onto what you just posted):

- I think your above comment is justified (I was there, and it was anything but a fair or loving portrayal of Christians who are emerging). I'm sure it was hurtful to you, and it definitely puts you in a difficult and painful position.

- I think that the Evangelicals associated with that event are (a) oppressive, (b) genuinely concerned for us, (c) reactionary, (d) lovers of God, (e) herders of sheep, and (f) as an institution, no better than the world at emulating Jesus.

- I think that your comment, though justified, pragmatic, and aimed at restoring marred relationships, is also essentially reactionary. I doubt it will do anything but continue the polarisation between the two parties, except among your Evangelical friends perhaps, who might make the effort. I don't think polarisation is good, since it opposes unity and blinds people to the other party's merits. It seems like the Evangelicals threw the first stone, but I'm certain that a Christ-like response to that would be to be crucified without protesting, and to demonstrate the love you have for them until it conquers their selfish self-defensiveness. Only after this can conversation be free and sensitive to God.

Once a reaction has been instigated, it is only brought to a halt by death. Martyrdom is by far the most honourable and Christian way to usher in death.

This is hard; it's superhumanly hard; but I'm certain that God's grace is sufficient, and that your loving will sustain you through absolutely anything. Love is the only spiritual weapon we have (or the core of every form of spiritual warfare). We'd better use it ;-)

Love
Arlyn

reply to this comment

Posted by: Arlyn Culwick 26 Aug, 2007 - 23:20:35

Thank you for affirming your beliefs; I find it very encouraging that you believe the Gospel and the authority of the scriptures.

I would like to address the 'out of context' issue with regards to McLaren. I have listened to him speak and, unless he didn't provide context for the context of his four hour seminar, then, in my opinion, there was a very tight alignment between what Gilley said of him and the gospel that McLaren expounds.

I do not fear for him, nor those misled by him, for God will keep His own. I do however mourn for him, as I do for Herbert W. Armstrong (a man who preached a gospel on the authority of the scriptures). Like McLaren, Armstrong had the answer that everyone (for about 2000 years) had missed. He understood that the Bible is like a puzzle, and with his unique understanding was able to create a picture that looked very different from the picture everyone else thought might be on the cover of the puzzle box.

I do not fear for McLaren, Armstrong, nor their legacy of followers (readers; quoters; impressed-by’ers), for each will be required to face and answer to our just God for his actions, and all this in good time. I do not fear that they will steal something that doesn’t belong to them, but I do hurt terribly for them.

Gilley could have been more loving and gentle and gracious in his approach, but he is doing the job he was called to do; the important job of warning the flock that there’s a jackal on the prowl. If I’m about to swallow a glass of eggnog swarming with salmonella (apparently is ‘swarms’ :p), please don’t be gentle with me. Offend me. Embarrass me. Perhaps even knock the glass from my hand and spill the egg over my face. But whatever you do, warn me!

Those who recognise the Shepherd’s voice will naturally and easily respond to it. Those of another flock will run and hide from an irritating noise.

reply to this comment

Posted by: Daniel Maree 27 Aug, 2007 - 10:22:26

alo alo wots going on here then? this contoversy sounds too good to miss. roger, what exactly did Gary say, and then what did you say? those of us out on the edges are missing the context.

reply to this comment

Posted by: nic paton 30 Aug, 2007 - 12:30:36

but i empathise with those who ask honest questions, see http://soundandsilence.wordpress.com/2007/03/13/being-hit-on-the-head-with-a-pulpit/

reply to this comment

Posted by: nic paton 30 Aug, 2007 - 12:33:11

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