Steve Brown, Etc. « Tony Jones April 25th, 2008

[…] [UPDATE: Here's the show.] […]

Ray April 25th, 2008

I understand (and agree with) the rejection of the "numbers and nickels" method of measuring church growth. And while I enjoy listening to Dr. Sproul at times, I recognize that he does tend to fall into what I call "the Protestant fallacy" — namely, equating correct theology with salvation. (My theo. background is Pentecostal, and some of Pentecostalism's fallacies are real corkers, so I'm not throwing stones here.)

However … I found Tony's criticisms of traditional churches in general, and Drs. Sproul, Falwell, Mohler, et al in particular, to be more smoke and flame than Christian love. I don't think for a moment that R.C. Sproul is disagreeing with Tony Jones because "that's how he makes a living" or because he's drumming up publicity, as Jones seems to be arguing. Further, I think Jones came across (whether he intended to or not) as more than a little bitter and defensive. If we are free to question the traditional theological teachings of the Church, why does he act pushed out of shape when his own teachings are questioned? It seems a bit disingenuous, if you'll pardon the long word.

Finally, I still don't know to what the term "Emergent Church" is supposed to refer. Several of us in my hometown have started what could be called a "house church," because we've found the congregations in our area to not be ideal places to minister, be ministered to, or meet with God. Our theology is essentially Pentecostal with a greater emphasis on Scriptural infallibility, but we have no officially licensed ministers, denominational affiliation or strict liturgy. Are we "Emergent"? I dunno. I do know that I can't ask Tony Jones!

Obed April 26th, 2008

I haven't yet listened to the Tony Jones interview, but I just watched the YouTube bit with Dr. Sproul, et al, discussing Postmodernism and the Emergent Church. So, take my comments accordingly. I may post more after listening to the Jones interview.

Ray, I think you're right about the "protestant fallacy" bit. I greatly appreciate R.C. and Ravi especially, but they often seem to have no room in their theology for valid disagreement. They often seem to put secondary doctrine at the same level as primary doctrine. They seem to forget that the Bible doesn't give us a systematic theology or religious system and thus theology and religion always have man's fingerprints on 'em.

One example of this was when R.C. criticized McClarin's book for claiming that a person can be both calvinist and arminian, catholic and protestant, charismatic and non-charismatic. Well, both calvinism and arminianism have serious holes in them scripturally. Since Scripture seems to support both views, is it a contradiction for a believer to do the same? Also, the entire philosophy of the Anglican Church is based around the idea of being both Catholic and Protestant. Anyone who's seriously studied Anglicanism can see that from the start. Finally, in 2 Corinthians Paul upholds tongue-talking (a Charismatic cornerstone), but says that order should prevail when in doubt (a non-Charismatic cornerstone.

Especially in regards to secondary theology and doctrine the bible is hardly as black and white as Dr. Sproul and the others would like us to believe. In that interview, they say that such a view is anti-Truth. Yet, the issue is that we don't have a full picture of Truth.

I wonder why these guys have such troubles accepting that concept? Is it an old-guard realism thing?

Obed April 26th, 2008

OK… after listening to the interview I've got some things to add.

Ray is right about Tony coming across as a bit defensive and dismissive of Sproul et al. Some of his insinuations as to their motives are problematic, judgemental, and likely dead wrong.

I liked his take on everyone being theologians and on the emergant movement being about making discussion valid within the church. There needs to be a certain amount of agnosticism regarding some areas of truth.

Let's face it, not all truths are Truth, and sometimes it's hard to draw the line. That said, I do think there are certain core issues that are the bare minimum of what it means for a set of beliefs to truly be Christian. I don't agree that every truth claim is equally up for debate within Christianity. However, I'd bet that most people's list of that bare minimum has stuff on it that shouldn't be there…

I'm only certain that two things should go on that list:
1. There is only one God, Yahweh (the cornerstone doctrine of the OT)
2. Only through Jesus' sacrifice we can be made right with God (the cornerstone doctrine of the NT).

I really can't think of anything else that should be a bare-minimum starting point for discussion or a bare minimum qualification for being Christian in one's beliefs.

As I look into this subject, I have a suspicion that I lean toward an emergent or post-modern philosophical outlook…

Christov April 26th, 2008

You guys need to follow this up with an interview of Frank Viola and George Barna discussing their book, Pagan Christianity - http://tinyurl.com/5nzcsq

Erik said, "Excellent!" and nobody realized it was a Bill and Ted thing. Hmmm….

Some good disagreement with a little heat in the exchange.

Ray April 26th, 2008

From my mind to your ears, Christov! I was thinking of adding on at the end of my previous post the suggestion that Frank Viola would be a great guest, and I don't know why I held off. I've recently read "Pagan Christianity?" and let me tell you, it's a bombshell. Thanks for covering my omission.

On a similar subject ("Emergent," whatever it is), does anyone have an opinion on William P. Young's book "The Shack"? I've been hearing a lot about it, but the positive reviews on it make it sound more than a little strange, and the negative review have to be handled with asbestos gloves or they'll burn your fingers. Wondering if anyone here has some insight on it.

Ray April 26th, 2008

Oopsie … just looked at the program listing and realized Young will be on May 16th. Guess I should just be patient.

The Emergent Church: Tony Jones, Steve Brown, RC Sproul, Al Mohler and Ravi Zacharias « From My Heart, Out Of My Mind April 27th, 2008

[…] by Don Bryant on April 27, 2008 Steve Brown on his radio show Steve Brow Etc interviewed Tony Jones, the National Coordinator of Emergent Village. Those who are familiar with […]

Roger H. Frost April 28th, 2008

Nothing good can come if the heart is not right

A J Calabrese April 28th, 2008

As far as I am concerned this "Emergent" Church movement is nothing more than 19th Century Christian liberalism dressed up in a Starbucks coffee cup. Mr. Jones is an arrogant elitist, who will not answer a question, and when pressed changes the subject to some dark period of our Christian historical past. This is known as moving the goal post. While anything can be discussed, Mr. Jones wades in to the tepid waters of relativism and comes out saying, essentially, "what is truth (as far as the understanding of orthodox (note little "o") christian doctrine) for me is not for the other guy, and that's all right." Well it is all right if you are in some Parisian coffee bar discussing philosophy, but that is not Christianity. Yes, I know I risk being labled "an old close minded foogy" by Mr. Jones and his ilk, but like them I say "who cares?"

Geoduck Joe April 28th, 2008

Great show. Great interview. I loved the "last word" attempt.

The irony is that Tony Jones and R.C. Sproul are attacking the same beast, both with very legitimate critiques: American Evangelicalism. Of course Sproul does it from the 16th century and Jones from the 21st.

They both see that something's wrong, but can't agree on what to do about it: either bring it back to a Reformation ideal or forward into a wikipedia democracy.

Thomas Ortiz April 28th, 2008

I just wish that Steve would have asked him if he believed in the ressurection and the atonement, that pretty much would have sealed it. If Tony believes in the core essential doctrines, I think all he was saying is that he's willing to debate with agnostics, atheists any aspect of our beliefs…At that point it seems as though Tony got overly defensive and Steve reverted to being a falwellian fundementalist and the show just collapsed.. Good try though Steve I give you credit for even taking the risk and giving the man a platform to speak.

Mark April 30th, 2008

Tony said, "I just wish I could give RC a hug." That's sooo great! Part of what is wrong with pro-emergents and anti-emergents is that they want to throw stones at each other from across the wall instead of talking face to face with each other across a table. It's a lot easier to hate someone when you never have to look them in the eye.

Caffeinated Thoughts April 30th, 2008

Twenty Items of Interest (v. 16)…

1.  Greg Boyd, senior pastor of Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, MN and professor of theology at Bethel University posted a review of Eckhart Tolle's book, A New Earth.  Tolle has recently partnered with Oprah to do a online religion …

Christov May 1st, 2008

I guess I see Tony, RC, Al, Ravi, and the rest of those guys as part of the same religious-professional "leaders" club - all of them on the same side of the "line." Although they regard one another with probably merited skepticism all around, they're essentially all functionally engaged in the same sorts of activities based upon an authoritarian, hierarchical view of the world and circumstances they inhabit.

In the long run, "Emergent" orthodoxy/praxy will have about as much to do with what the NT seems to describe as church as (pick your least favorite conservative Protestant denom and insert it here).

Charles Curtis May 1st, 2008

"I think that most Christians grossly misunderstand the philosophical baggage associated with terms like 'absolute' or 'objective' (linked to foundationalism and the myth of neutrality)…Similarly, arguments that pit absolutism versus relativism, and objectivism versus subjectivism, prove meaningless or absurd to postmodern people"

-Brian McLaren, "Emergent Evangelism", Christianity Today, November 2004

"Moreover, I don't want you to believe in objective truth or relativism either, because the first concept is corrupting the curch and its witness to the world, while the second is wasting the precious time and energy of a lot of Christians."

- Philip Kenneson, "There's No Such Thing as Objective Truth, and It's a Good Thing, Too", in Christian Aplogetics in a Postmodern World, InterVarsity Press 1995.

Terms like 'postmodern', 'emergent', 'foundationalism' and others get thrown around alot. But to be certain, many who are self-proclaimed postmodernists reject real truth and our ability to know real truth. These guys believe that there is an absolute and unversal cause and effect relationship between acting bad and believing you know truth, from acting decent and rejecting the ability to know truth. They even have names for it. Ironic for postmodernists, which reveals the bankrupt nature of postmodernism as a philosophy.

It's a philosophical school of thought that McLaren and others adopted into their church. But it is not a good philosophy and even though many call themselves postmodern and probably aren't, if pressed, I wish people would find another word in order to disassociate themselves with a dangerous philosophy.

Certainty isn't required to know something. Bias isn't an impenetrable wall to truth and bias is also a good thing. For example, once I discover that something like cancer is bad, would my bias against cancer be wrong? And does my inability to 'get it' automatically mean no one can 'get it' with regards to true knowledge? Two very poor postmodern assumptions that can't be lived out consistently even in order to defend their position.

Here's the real issue:

The postmodern church isn't here because of problems in doctrine or issues about truth. The postmodern church is here because the Church has acted poorly and the postmodern church has decided to unite doctrine to the people who acted poorly and threw the baby out with the bathwater.

This is not a 21st century anomoly and the internet has nothing to do with it.

Anyone ever heard of Unitarianism? It caught fire in New England about 250 years ago and rapidly replaced the Puritan and Congregationalist churches. Unitarians rejected the deity of Christ and the Trinity, among other things. When you go to Boston these days, all the Episcopal and Congregational Churches that were converted to Unitarian Churches are still alive and well.

Why did a securely Puritan area become heretical so quickly? Here's a few examples explaining a large reason why:

1) John Winthrop, the Puritan leader of the Massachusetts had problems with Mary Dyer, who wanted to bring Quaker ideas into the colony. She had a stillborn child, held a funeral for the child and buried the stillborn outside Boston. Winthrop, determined to malign Mary, dug up her dead child, described it as half human, half devil, and spread that description as far as England, in order to 'prove' she was a witch and had sex with Satan. Mary was booted out of Massachusetts after that. She kept coming back, until Winthrop and the 'synod' had her hung in Boston Commons.

2) Salem Witch trials….say no more. People were hung and one who wanted nothing to do with the chaos was crushed under the weight of rocks, by a 'jury of peers'.

People in New England got sick of the cruelty and wrongly associated it with Scripture itself, quickly abandoning it for heresy. And, ironically, were much more humane to each other than the 'orthodox' thereby avenging the move, in their minds. They decided to throw out Jesus' teachings in order to try acting more like Him while the orthodox 'assented' to Jesus' teachings without putting feet to their words….other than the feet of an angry mob and ended up looking nothing like Him. Neither side got it right, and we traded cruelty for alienation and despair.

Same thing is happening today, Internet or no Internet. We aren't murdering each other (we can thank the heretics for bringing us out of that mess—ironically), but we are attacking each other, labelling each other in order to dismiss our command to love one another. Both sides are doing it and it has nothing to do with doctrine or philosophy or the Internet. It has to do with the lack of love among us, which is a Scriptural mandate in 1 John and in the Gospel of John (which can only be interpreted one way and one way only).

Objective truth exists, whether we want to believe in it or not, whether we can accept it or not, or whether we are biased or not. We can hold to absolute and universal truths with bias and be justified in doing so. The ones that we should hold to about loving each other and bearing one another's burdens is the universal absolute portion of Scripture that the Puritans, Congregationalists and the Conservatives like to put on the shelf in favor of what they have tradionally labelled "good doctrine" which is a mask for bad behavior. The Postmodernists like to put doctrine on the shelf in favor of out-shining the actions of Conservatives, but jerked any rational reason for doing so out from under their feet.

We are reacting to our lack of love for each other, rather than our beliefs, view of truth or doctrine. The Conservatives have forgotten their first love and lifted Jesus' teachings over Jesus Himself, and ended up cruel. The Postmodernists are a reaction to that and are correcting nothing, but creating another opposing team….and more problems. The Conservatives are all too ready to engage in more cruelty and react in kind. None of each are furthering the cause of Christ.

If anyone wants to get the best description of Postmodernism as a philosophical school of thought and how it relates to the Emergent church, two books…..1) How to Be Conversant with the Emergent Church - DA Carson and 2) Kingdom Triangle - JP Moreland. JP Moreland knows more about this than anyone else I have read.

Charles Curtis May 1st, 2008

BTW, the fact that people think either like Aristotle or Nagarjuna (Buddhist philosopher), are in fact assenting to the very thinking they call Aristotilean. The more you try to clobber the Law of Non-Contradiction, the more it clobbers you.

Charles Curtis May 1st, 2008

One last thing, I don't believe Tony really wants to hug R.C.

Shane Vander Hart May 1st, 2008

Charles, I agree with you. That seems highly unlikely

Charles Curtis May 2nd, 2008

R.C. thinks the emergents are around because they don't want to be hemmed in with doctrine or face confrontation….take the easy way.

I agree with him, except we are all in that basket….because we refuse to deal with the other half of their existence….their reaction to doctrinally correct Christians dispensing cruelty on their very own.

We complain that they always bring up the darkside. But we do have a darkside, and we really don't deal with it. We dismiss it. And it is shockingly dark. I contend that the only reason MacArthur doesn't suggest hanging, drowning or crushing heretics with large stones, is because of impact of heretics of the late 18th century, rather than our return to Scripture. Until we face the dark side, there will always be growing numbers of Unitarians, Universalists, Emergents, Liberal theology, etc. We have to accept responsibility for our part in their existence and stop blaming 100% on their own lack of perserverence to doctrine or orthodoxy in general.

I think it will go further.

Done ranting….back to obscurity

Christov May 2nd, 2008

Funny what you say about MacArthur. Listening to his radio show, I always thought his attitude was more like To Hell With You (in bold italics, if you please, Erik), as opposed to the name under which his show is marketed to an adoring segment of the public.

Brian May 4th, 2008

"Charles Curtis May 1st, 2008One last thing, I don't believe Tony really wants to hug R.C"

Hey Charles, I do agree!!! The response to this video excerpt I posted of "Sproul Mohler and Ravi" only proves that many today do in fact have a disgust and a distaste for orthodox, scriptural theology. Charles, I am in agreement with you totally on this issue! I actually never thought you would have defended what they said…but you did, and very well I might add! in this post orthodox era, will see increased attacks on those who actually have it more right than others who just claim and say they do, but are just trying to make a name for themselves, as "emergent" as they try to be…..reminds me of emerging markets and hedge funds……just going "eslewhere" to try and make a buck!! : ))

Hey, I've even visited the emergent "Wizard of "ooze" website….and must say…..(ooozy ooozborn??) that truth seems to be something subjective, and ever changing with no real absolutes. Reactionary, and trendy. Nothing of which describes the true everlasting "unchangeable" God who is there" (thank you Francis). Undoubtedly, it is sad that we have no real modern day replacements for these faithful men who have stood faithful to champion the cause of the Gospel truth all of their lives…..RC Sproul has engaged non Christians at just about every level in society for the better half of the past 45 years, and isn't afraid to debate (even still) those who are unsatisfied with the Bibilcal norm and feel they need to add or reinvent some of their own….I'd much rather have RC in my Theological foxhole at a time of war, than Steve Brown, Tony Campolo or Brian McClaren!! Until the day we can be face to face with Jesus, that is…and no more war.

Hey, this could just be a passing fad, but people who feel they just have to find a way to bend or manipulate what is solid and clear, have deeper issues with which to contend. They strive on self attention. Pride in their own vanity. We see it all the time from posts on this board soo lacking in humility. So unlike, John the Baptist who stated, I must "decrease….so that He (Jesus) would increase!

We instead see so many who would rather others meet "them" (ie my space, youtube, and self edifying blog's which have more to say about how great "thy art" than Christ is….not to say there is indeed a context for which some of these mediums can be good…such as the one we're on now….minus the scritpural deadbeats.

Emergent…..convergent…..divergent. Always something trying to steal the thunder from what can be plainly understood from a garden variety reading of "God's Inspired" Word…providing an interpretation far and away from those who are better equipped to handle God's Word. There will always be folks who claim "there's always a better way"…and it is those who find comfort in following right along that go from fad to fad…..but often having nothing of real substance left to show…..since only God can give, inspire, or impart true value.

Steve May 4th, 2008

I just listened to the podcast today and was puzzled. When Tony Jones answered that there were no absolutes… nobody asked him if he was absolutely sure… A quick series of follow up yes no questions would have been interesting. For instance, is scripture the inspired word of God?… Did Jesus resurect physically from the dead?…

Just because everyone is a "theologian" doesn't mean that every opinion is equally valid.

Charles Curtis May 5th, 2008

I'm glad we agree on some things. I have always had a soft spot for Ravi. I have always considered RC as sort of the Captain Kirk of evangelicalism

But you missed probably the most important point I was trying to make, which you may not agree with me. Aside wanting Steve in the foxhole over all the others you mentioned…we have to accept a large part of the blame for Emergents, Liberal Theologians, etc, just as the Puritans and Congregationalists should have accepted responsibility for the Unitarians and Deists back in their day. We have not exhibited Scriptural mandate (command of Christ Himself) to love one another as He has loved us. There's no excuse for digging up dead babies and describing them as half-demon, anymore than there is an excuse for us to treat our brothers and sisters who disagree with us as crap.

Had there been a huge repentance on behalf of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the officials of Salem, etc., maybe there wouldn't have been such a deliberate backlash against 'orthodoxy' as there was. Had McArthur decided to trust God rather than his own doctrinal knowledge and self-righteous percieved standing, maybe his words would be taken to heart a little more. Sure, I fully understand the sinful heart and its inclinations against conviction….but we use that as a 'get out of jail free' card to excuse our piss poor behavior toward each other, 'before the watching world', as Schaeffer would have stated.

We need to put feet to our doctrine, rather than just spew it every time we think people may have forgotten how obnoxious we can be….and start obeying Christ, loving one another, even and especially those who don't think just like we do or look just like we do, and then maybe there won't be a need for a sinful reaction from a spurned portion of evangelicalism (Mohler himself stated that the new liberals used to be conservative evangelicals).

We need to fess up to being cruel and calloused and also our refusal to take responsibilty for our lack of love by falling back on the sinfullness of man. It's difficult to accept someone preaching about the depravity of man, with his foot on someone's face.

You want to know how to help someone embrace Biblical doctrines? Wash their feet. Die for them. Show them you love them. It works better than polemics. You would think RC would have figured that out by now, as smart a guy as he is.

Charles Curtis May 5th, 2008

BTW, I liked your comment about hedge funds.

But don't get me started about oil!

Brian May 5th, 2008

Yes…Ravi has a soft spot for people. Yet he would still align himself alongside the truth of RC. Charles, I see your point. There is a need for more love among Christians. At the same time, I would say there always needs to be a balance. I know RC. I think your caricature of him isn't accurate on a personal level. There is a place for RC among hard hearted people when it comes to understanding the Sovereignty of God. Once, he told me about a golfing buddy of his who had recently lost his 4 year old daughter to life threatening disease. The Christian man was angry at God….steamed at what had been taken from Him…..and angrily asked RC why would a good God away my year old daughter??? RC looked at him intently after some of the venting had passed, and said, "God has every right to take your daughter, your wife, your son, and everything from you…..any time he would so ever desire! You owe a gratitude to God for the time you did have! The man broke down right on the course they were playing on, broken hearted….in a way no one but God could do…..but He used RC to do that. Certainly, a washing of this man's feet would surely have been the "wrong" thing to do.

Point is, there are times and seasons for being both tough on truth and lavishing with grace. Since we see Jesus in both contexts….I feel safe to say, we should do the same.

Did you know that Alice Cooper (the wild Rock star of the 70's who's real name I cannot recall) was converted through personal interaction with RC?? If you knew the half of this man's life, you'd be backing off from your prior comments. He doesn't write books about how great God has used him, or how much he used to know which no longer amounts to much. I don't need to read a book about what someone else got wrong in life for so many years and now has an epiphany of what really, and truly really is true. Sproul has been sound an unchanging, reflecting truth about God for decades……and it for the most part, goes unchallenged from the highest intellects of our culture. Only Greg Bahnsen was perhaps the only one to outwit RC in a debate…..but that's another story.

Sproul get's a bad rap. from those who want the warm and fuzzies…..who think everyone wants the warm and fuzzies…(reminds me of that 80's movie "One Crazy Summer") those "cute n fuzzy bunnies"! Anyway, you will someday appreciate RC for fulfilling God's mission and call for his life…..Most could only dream of serving God in such a way that He has. I would say, he's the most profound communicator of Biblical Truth over the past 100 years! Most folks hear something critical about RC and never pick up one of his books, or listen to a podcast. You'll get more meat there than you will here. If you knew RC as well as I do, you'd be much more appreciative of his lifelong dedication to God's truth, without the Eureka's!! Just my fumble opinion.

Brian May 5th, 2008

So few people come to the realization, that God's truth does indeed empower the believer to change….unlike many who would dare say otherwise in the face of so much Scripture. Hey, maybe what they have really doesn't work for them?? Funny how it is….Steve Brown always talks about "change" not really amounting to "spit" or how repentance is overplayed in the church and doesn't really work…. and yet, when an Epiphany of "truth" come's his way, he does indeed "change" what He thought he knew was right was really really wrong!" Writes books about it, profits from it, and poopoos all those out there (who are like he used to be) who say that God's truth really can empower believers to overcome sin….oh, and uhhhh…change….that part I actually think he "gets" very well. Sounds an awful lot like somebody "did" repent (ie change) but apparently seems to have written it off for everyone else! (and yet I didn't even know he had that power : ))) God forbid that anyone would ever dare to try to live like, do like, act like a "real" Christian. Hey Steve, should I stop trying to please God with my life, and just "accept" this grace ( that I already have) which empowers me to want to be more like him just because I will fail in so trying?
This is a confusing point that I think warrants being clarified…I am "clarified" of the truth which has set me free indeed…or… without deed.

Brian May 5th, 2008

I would rather be in the company of Non Christians who yearn for what it really means to be "Christ-like", (and can't) then "christians" who take comfort in a forgiving grace which never aspires to change them. (but could)

Mark May 6th, 2008

I like Tony Jones and the Emergent Church. This was a fascinating interview.

G-rock May 6th, 2008

I like Dr. Gene Scott better than the Emergents. They are too…. soft??

What we need are more preachers who smoke cigars, cuss, and foam at the mouth while riding wooden horsies on national TV.

Emergents won't do that. Might mess up the manicured nails.

G-rock May 6th, 2008

We need more John the Baptists. Eating locusts and all kinds of crazy sh*t. You wouldn't want him at your fellowship. Hell no! Scare the piss out of both fundies and emergents alike.

Maybe do a shot of Cuervo w/ John while talking about Jesus and stuff. Fundies would run like crazy and emergents wouldn't be able to handle it.

G-rock May 6th, 2008

Jesus and John the Baptist = Punk Rock & strong drink

Emergents = Barry Manilow and diet soda

Take your pick…

G-rock May 6th, 2008

Why does the Emergent church feel like a group of people who weren't in the cool club during high school, and are now trying to make up for it?

Effing trends. They're everywhere.

G-rock May 6th, 2008

Gene Scott, we need you.

Mark May 6th, 2008

George C. Scott, we need you too.

Erik May 6th, 2008

Mr. Scott, we need the ship to take more of this.

G-rock May 6th, 2008

Ricky Schroeder, we need you too.

Charles Curtis May 6th, 2008

G-Rock, you mentioned everything except the thunder beads and speed ball. Gene would be a little disappointed.

Brian, I like RC's stuff. If there's anyone I get hives about, its Big Mac. I have read and recommend alot of RC's stuff. But he's not above criticism. He seems to move the Arminianism/Calvinism, Covenant/Dispensational arguments up to the "essentials" level to the Christian faith, when they are clearly not. But he's a top scholar and very up on even secular philo. But his business should be serving and loving others. Teaching and preaching are good, but aren't really substitutes…as if I know by my own example….he dogs me.

Read John 13-17. Jesus teaches us the way in those passages and He is crystal clear. And we hardly ever do that. We hardly ever serve or love. Way say the word alot, but it is nowadays contentless religious jargon. Jesus said the power to transform us and the world is in loving one another, without conditions placed, just as He loves us. All that "you obey my commands I will remain in you" and "ask anything in My Name and I will give it to you" are powerful statements all in the context of following His example of serving each other by loving each other, just as He loves us.

He didn't say this, but I think one could arguably conclude it from His teaching, that if you go another route other than serve/love, even if you want to stretch the definition of serve/love to things that obviously aren't even close, instead of His power…instead of bearing His fruit, you get cruelty, then schism, heresies, Brian McLaren and the whole Hee Haw Gang. Once more, as they deny the objective and universal truth of Christ's teaching, particularly of John 13-17, they go ahead and shame us by serving better and loving more, when we are the ones who are supposed to be the obedient ones who take Jesus' teaching seriously. Instead, we debate, hold conferences to figure out how many critical things we can come up with about the other side without any examination or complicitness of our own side.

Again, I lack big time, but I think I should get some credit for at least recognizing my ailment, right?

Charles Curtis May 6th, 2008

…or, I guess get more conviction….

Brian May 6th, 2008

Why ofcourse Charles…..recognizing the ailment is equally as important as the wisdom and "rightousness" to overcome or fix it!! Emphasizing one over the other, results in either a lack of Faith at the first point, and too much pride in the 2nd. Apart from Him, we are always loathing and lacking. Empowered by Him, we can do all things through Christ who strengthens us. I think we should all be bouncing around somewhere in the middle, instead of sticking to either side of this. I appreciate your observations, and pardon me if I had your comments about "Robert Charles" misconstrued. I do agree with you about the "jargon" and the misuse of love in the Church, it seems many just make it satirical and surreal…..and so not the group I care to fellowship with. One + God = a majority…..one jargon I increasingly find myself appreciating more and more over time.

Charles Curtis May 6th, 2008

Bottom line is that loving them will do more than 'correcting' them. Always will. I mean a genuine love, rather than a control thing.

If we own up to our distrustful desire to control outcomes and people, rather than love and serve, we might be in a better position to converse and even reconcile with 'emergents' as well as others. The longer we deny our complicitness, the harder it will be to do any good for Him while we're here.

That's all I'm saying. And I think John 13-17 as well as 1 Cor. 13 clearly teaches this.

Steve Brown Etc. » Blog Archive » Etcetera - 05.14.08 - The Shack, Etc. May 15th, 2008

[…] The Tony Jones interview - The Brian McLaren […]

Emergent & Reformed Coming Together? « Grace & Peace May 16th, 2008

[…] his writing. I have read much more of other Emergent leaders.  But I had recently listened to an interview Jones did on Steve Brown, etc., and came away impressed with his heart and conviction - though still not with all his theological […]