Posted by Hemant Mehta on: 03.28.2006 /
Pastor Mike asked:
I don’t know, are atheist small group discussions less tangential and unruly than most Christian small groups I’ve been a part of?
Having been a part of *many* Atheist small group discussions, they do get off track fairly easily, but usually it stay focused on the Atheist perspective (as opposed to a completely unrelated tangent). It’s almost implicit in what we discuss that tangents will be involved. There’s not always a basis (like the Bible) to go back to. For example, if we’re discussing how we can live moral lives without God, it’s quite an open discussion that could go in many directions. Are we unruly? No. Usually, we have food to keep us calm :)
Ir said:
As for Hemant’s comment “it’s a type of Christianity no Atheist should have a problem with” – I don’t know exactly what he meant; my guess is that he didn’t mean “here’s a belief system all atheists could and should adopt!”
Nope, didn’t mean that… I meant that there are some Christians who go out of their way to rip on my beliefs. Some people demand that I say “Under God” in the Pledge or teach the Biblical version of Creation. Obviously, Atheists have a problem with this. Mike’s group at Via Christus said that they are for separation of church and state. I gathered that they would like to be respected enough to worship as they please, and they are fine with letting others worship in their ways. And if Atheists want respect, they should have no problem giving it to groups like Mike’s.
Westy noted:
I think it’s our tendency to go easier on someone we actually got the chance to interact with and discovered was a decent individual, and that’s what happened here. I have the feeling that if Hemant had personally interacted w/ the pastor at Moody last week, his critique would have sounded different.
I wrestled with this one for a while before posting… because I thought the same thing: How could I possibly give a bad review to Via Christus after having talked to Mike? Would my Moody posting have been different if I had been able to talk to the pastor there?
But I made sure I kept those feelings separate. Had I not talked to Mike at all, I would have given the same review. I mean, my mind was made up (in terms of what I posted) before I talked to Mike and the others. I think if I talked to the pastor at Moody, I may have been able to gauge more of where he was coming from, but my feelings about the evening wouldn’t have changed.
– Hemant
Leave a Reply
Comment by: Mike
1 03/28/06 10:43 PM | Comment Link |For the record, we did repeatedly encourage Hemant to be brutally honest with us and let him know several times that he didn’t need to be nice to us just ‘cuz we had the chance to talk more personally and he got to know us a little better.
In fact, I was almost hoping he would have been a little more critical. It always helps to receive some friendly constructive criticism. :)
-Mike
Comment by: Jim Henderson
2 03/28/06 11:58 PM | Comment Link |Mike and Hemant bring out the best in all of us
Mike is the first pastor to have been given official notice that Hemant was coming. Because I knew what kind of a community he led I knew that it was unecessary for Hemant to go there anonymously.
(BTW- Hemant had to drive 2 hours to get there)
Fortunately, there are a number of small missional communities like Via Christus popping up all over the country. These are usually very open environments such as Hemant found in Mikes. They often associate themselves with a movement called The Emerging Church which has been strongy influenced by my friend Brian McLaren.
Comment by: Ir
3 03/29/06 3:30 AM | Comment Link |Hemant wrote:
Hemant, thanks for clarifying what you meant by “[What I saw and heard about at Via Christus is] a type of Christianity no Atheist should have a problem with”
Am I right that this is the difference you perceived between Moody Church and Via Christus?
At Via Christus your freedom to be an atheist and live according to your atheist principles was respected. At Moody Church, the comments you heard throughout the meeting indicated no respect for the freedom of people who didn’t share Moody Church beliefs to live a life according their own principles.
I expect you’re right that if you had spoken personally to the pastor at Moody, he wouldn’t have said anything to dramatically change the view of whether atheist freedoms are respected by the Moody Church community which being at the meeting had given you.
I think it was nice of him to come here and respond to your comments personally last week but, bottom line, it sounds like the ramifications of the different ‘versions’ of following Jesus you encountered at Via Christus and Moody are the reasons, ultimately, why you felt more respected at Via Christus. And no matter how friendly you might find the people at a church with beliefs like Moody, sooner or later it will become apparent whether they respect your freedom to be and live as an atheist and it will matter.
Comment by: Peter in Pennsylvania
4 03/29/06 5:12 AM | Comment Link |Ir,
You got RIGHT at it! It is all about respect, isn’t it! For me, when Xians don’t respect people of other beliefs (doesn’t mean they have to be relativistic, just respectful) they violate the command of Love, so well defined in 1 Cor 13.
Comment by: Ir
5 03/29/06 5:40 AM | Comment Link |I agree, Peter. The word ‘respect’ seems interestingly missing from much of the Christian religious system - I wonder why, if true love is not possible without it, and Christians are always talking about love…
Comment by: Peter in Pennsylvania
6 03/29/06 5:42 AM | Comment Link |Unfortunately, Christians AREN’T always talking about love, like we should be. Maybe THAT’s the problem.
I LOVE YOU ALL! (sniff sniff)
And, yeah, Hemant is getting soft… I think he started out that way. I mean… he’s a nice person at all. Not at all like all the Xian preachers tell you atheists are. I think you’re ALL soft!
;-)
laugh a little… almost halfway through the week!
Comment by: Rick
7 03/29/06 6:49 AM | Comment Link |Dude, I don’t know how meetings are conducted in your neck of the woods, but here in deep south we always have discussions of morality over a pitcher of ale, or a crisp martini ;) Oxymoron ,eh?
Its our experience that freethought groups tend to get more and more introspective and calm with level of inebriation (sp?). And if you look at our listservs right after these meetings when the thoughts are still fresh and folks are still mellow in the warmth of martinis, you can read ideas which may blow your mind.
There goes our secret :-)
Comment by: Marty
8 03/29/06 9:14 AM | Comment Link |Hemant on Infidel Guy tonight at 8:00 PM EST
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
9 03/29/06 9:14 AM | Comment Link |The respect thing is important. But isn’t it a two-way street?
Hemant mentioned, “Some people demand that I say “Under God” in the Pledge…” Why is this such a big deal? Two points. I have had numerous experiences in which I have been a minority or an extreme minority. When that is the nature of my situation I do not insist on having my way or get my nose out of joint because the majority thinks/acts differently than I do.
Second point: Back a long time ago when Christianity was an extreme minority a question arose about a similar situation in the reverse: could Christians eat food that had been sacrificed to idols? Paul wrote in 1Cor 8:
So Paul essentially told the Christians, don’t make a big deal over what other, mistaken people think. You know what the truth is. Act accordingly.
So, the question is, if atheists are confident of their position (and therefore confident that Christians are wrong and there is no “God” to be under) and if atheists are a vanishingly small minority in a nation that, whatever you may think of it, seems to generally support the retention of the phrase, why is it such a big deal? Why can’t atheists just do like I did when I was a kid and had to say or do something I wasn’t supportive of; just look around at the other atheists around and give ‘em the ol’ “‘wink wink’ we know better than these poor ignorant schmucks” thing? I just don’t get it.
Tom
Comment by: Brent
10 03/29/06 9:23 AM | Comment Link |Jim,
Do the terms ’small missional communities,’ ‘emerging churches,’and ‘organic churches’ describe the same or similar approaches?
If Via Christus were to grow to a congregation of 100+ that met as a congregation at least once a week where they would hear a message from the pastor would they still be considered an emerging church?
Comment by: Jim Henderson
11 03/29/06 9:31 AM | Comment Link |The terms are in process - we don’t know where it will land - but essentially yes
Lets put it this way - many churches would not want to called by any of those titles - those who are called by those terms are generally flexible
Yes - size of the church doesn’t matter (although to preach to a large group you have to be gifted for that) it’s how the church understands itself - Mostly Family or Mostly Mission - You have to choose one - you have to major in one and minor in the other - no such thing as balance due to the complications real human being throw at you
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
12 03/29/06 9:52 AM | Comment Link |My two bits: I think size matters. I think that large churches will lose the characteristic differences.
I go to a church that started out VERY seeker-oriented. It was strongly patterned after Willow Creek. And our church is still a little “edgier” than some of the other churches in the area. But as the church has grown it has moved more and more toward more conventional church patterns.
And I’d say the proof of this lies in human behavior and past patterns of church development. I think God brings along these “new” ideas every so often just to keep things stirred up (in the best sense) and fresh, but everything gets stale in time.
Come back to Via Christus in 15 or 20 years and it’ll be a very different place, and probably a lot more like “First Baptist” than anyone would ever dream now. But that’s not a bad thing. It’s just how life works.
Tom
Comment by: Westy
13 03/29/06 10:43 AM | Comment Link |Thanks for noting this, Hemant. I trust this is the case, I was just noting human tendency.
Ir, as to your comment in regard to
I am not sure Pastor Mike would agree that he is espousing a ‘different’ version of Jesus. The approach may be different, but ultimately, members of the emerging church movement also believe that Jesus is the only path to salvation. This does not of course mean that they or Moody members (for instance) don’t care about other people who happen to be non-Christian, but they do disagree with their beliefs. I hope a statement of disagreement would not constitute disrespect.
I would agree that this happens, Tom. And some of it has to do with the age of the congregation trending upwards as time passes also. People tend not to leave the church they’re comfortable in, and thus the younger, newer, edgier themes that are a part of every new younger generation don’t filter into established churches as easily. Not that there’s anything necessarily wrong with that.
Comment by: Ir
14 03/29/06 11:27 AM | Comment Link |Westy, I chose my words carefully - I wrote “different versions of following Jesus”, not “different versions of Jesus” - because I wasn’t just referring to what each group believes. Following Jesus has to do with behavior as well as belief.
I think it’s likely that the people of Via Christus and the people of Moody Church follow Jesus in somewhat different ways.
Comment by: Mike
15 03/29/06 3:16 PM | Comment Link |Perhaps I can clarify just exactly what Pastor Mike and Via Christus believes… ;)
I think I actually would say that in comparison to Moody I do espouse both a different version of following Jesus and a different version of Jesus himself. Not an entirely different version mind you (we’re all still part of the same family), but definitely not just the same either. I’d say that our practices and our theology are significantly different than conservative evangelical churches like Moody.
In my mind most conservative evangelical churches teach a reduced version of the gospel and a reduced Jesus. I don’t necessarily think they’re completely wrong, perhaps just woefully incomplete. What I mean is that most of these churches make the focus of Jesus’ life and teachings all about how to get to heaven after you die, and while I think that’s perhaps part of the gospel, by no means do I think that it’s the main or most important part. Jesus, IMHO, was much more about the present reality of the kingdom of God, an alternative social, political, spiritual reality that all people - regardless of race, religion or nationality - were invited to enter into. To put it another way, Jesus didn’t just come to teach us how to die, he came to show us how to live.
For more on this perspective on Jesus and the Way of Christ (hmmm… what a great name for a church :) ) check out Brian McLaren’s new book The Secret Message of Jesus.
At least to me, this different view of Jesus and the gospel has a lot to do with what it means to be an “emerging church”. Yes there are aspects to it that have to do with style and size, but more essential than those things are these differences in philosophy and theology.
To be honest I know of emerging churches like Mars Hill in Grand Rapids MI that have over 10,000 members, and I know of others like ours that are no more than a house church. Again, being emergent has more to do with how one approaches the faith, than with how big the church is.
So I hope that even if Via Christus begins to grow we will still maintain the core things that make us “emergent” (not that the label is important, but the core things that the label describes I think are).
Though to be honest, I don’t really want VC to become a megachurch. I think if we were to grow beyond 400-500 or so we’d start looking to hive off and plant a new church. I also really want to focus on developing neighborhood house churches, where the focus of church life is not the weekend worship gatherings but smaller gatherings of people who live in close proximity all sharing life together.
Peace,
-Pastor Mike
Via Christus Community Church
Comment by: Westy
16 03/29/06 3:47 PM | Comment Link |I’ve gotcha, Ir. That clarifies what you meant. Certainly there are different styles of worship, and I just meant that there really is only 1 way to be a true Christian, which I anticipate Via Christus and Moody agree on.
Comment by: Ir
17 03/29/06 7:20 PM | Comment Link |Westy, I think you may be underestimating the differences between Moody Church and Via Christus.
Comment by: Ir
18 03/29/06 7:48 PM | Comment Link |I think Moody Church and Via Christus do agree on the centrality of Jesus.
Comment by: Mike
19 03/29/06 7:59 PM | Comment Link |I think so too. :)
Yes, indeed! I’m more committed to Jesus and to his Way than I ever was. And I’ve found no reason to question his divinity or anything like that either. I’ve just come to see the meaning of his life, teachings, death and resurrection in a new and fuller way than I did when I still considered myself a conservative evangelical.
-Mike
Comment by: Eliza
20 03/29/06 10:09 PM | Comment Link |Mike - can you expand on this? How do you see the meaning, and how has your thinking changed? Thanks!
Comment by: Mike
21 03/30/06 12:09 AM | Comment Link |Eliza asked:
Well, if you had asked me about eight years ago what I thought the heart of the gospel was, I would have probably said that it was to believe that Jesus died on the cross for your sins so that you can go to Heaven when you die.
But what I’ve come to realize is that this is not how Jesus answered the question. His gospel was that “the kingdom of heaven is here, it’s among you!” And he described the mission of that kingdom in his innaugural sermon in Luke 4:18-9 with these words:
And in the Lord’s Prayer he taught us to pray:
“Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”
In other words, Jesus’ message is as much about bringing heaven to earth through radical acts of compassion and justice for the poor and oppressed, as it is about going to heaven when we die.
In short I think Jesus came to show us a new way of life, a way marked by compassion, generosity, service, reconciliation, peacemaking, joy, celebration, and above all, love. I think he intended for his people, and all those who choose to live according to this way of love, to slowly transform the world to reflect this new kingdom reality.
In his new book, The Secret Message of Jesus, Brian McLaren puts it this way:
Again, not that forgiveness for our sins, and hope after death is not part of the gospel message. I think they are. It’s just that they are one facet of a much larger picture of what Jesus came to do in this world and in our lives.
Does that make sense?
Peace,
Mike
Comment by: Ir
22 03/30/06 4:01 AM | Comment Link |Hi Mike,
I’m so glad you came by to give your own answers about how Via Christus understands Jesus’ message. I was hesitant to get too far into what you know much more about than me! I did see your 3/21 blog entryt “What is the gospel?” and I appreciated it, having had some of the same thoughts and questions myself.
I’m interested to read your review of Brian McLaren’s new book carefully when I have time. (Who knows - maybe I will even read the book!)
Anyway, we have had some discussion on the OTM blog in recent weeks about whether and how Christians and atheists can work together to ‘make the world a better place’ (MTWABP). I’m going to modify that to ‘make the world a place Jesus likes better for now, since I’m talking about followers of Jesus. I went to Moody Church for 12 years and I know that the people of Moody Church do want to make the world a place Jesus likes better. One of the things that stands in the way of them working with atheists on MTWABP is their view that Jesus would like the U.S. better if abortion and gay marriage were made/kept illegal. Atheists want freedom of choice regarding abortion and equal rights for gay people. So Moody Church people and atheists will never be able to work together on making the world a better place regarding abortion and gay rights unless their views change.
My question for you is - which side of this are you on? In other words, do you think a world Jesus likes better would have abortion and gay marriage made illegal or do you think it would have freedom of choice over abortion and equal rights for gay people? Or am I wrong in assuming you are definitely on one side or the other? I’m interested in your personal answer and in how such a question would be dealt with at Via Christus.
At Moody there is ‘one right answer’ to what Jesus prefers regarding legal abortion and gay rights - there can only be one because a right interpretation of the Bible only sanctions one (so they believe and teach). How about at Via Christus?
I hope that in asking these questions I am not pushing you to discuss things you’d rather not discuss. My guess is that the atheists will like your answers and the conservative evangelical Christians will feel some concern and add you to their prayer lists :)
As for me, I’m beginning to wish you weren’t so way far out of Chicago :)
I’ve written some thoughts about my own ‘change of belief’ away from conservative evangelicalism here on OTM’s discussion board
Comment by: Peter in Pennsylvania
23 03/30/06 4:18 AM | Comment Link |Mike,
I am also a Xian (and a pastor) who has been sorely affected by my late understanding over the past few years of this “Secret Message of Jesus” (I am also enjoying that new book immensely, btw - read it at the same time as Petersons “Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places”). You have articulated this all very well. I hope and pray that I am becoming the kind of person who understands that all better…
BTW, I think that “secret message” is WAY cooler than the whole “personal relationship with JESUS (read that word with a southern accent please)” thing that the american evangelical community has been spouting. It’s a COMMUNAL relationship too!
I’m SO glad that Hemant stopped by your church.
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
24 03/30/06 9:45 AM | Comment Link |Mike, you made a comment I would affirm in the strongest way. You said, (#15)
One of my favorite CS Lewis works is Reflections On The Psalms. I’ve read and re-read this 45+ year old book a number of times. And he made a very interesting argument that God never intended the “hope of heaven” to be a motivator. He wanted, from the beginning of the OT, to have people seek Him for who He is, not for what He can give. And Lewis says this is why the OT offers virtually nothing in the way of a theology of life after death and why the Jews initially had virtually nothing in the way of a theology of life after death.
For those interest3ed in reading Lewis’ thoughts, they are in chapter 4 of ROTP. It is a relatively short passage. I can post it on the discussion board if anyone is interested.
Tom
Comment by: Westy
25 03/30/06 10:31 AM | Comment Link |Thanks for the expansion, Mike. I follow.
While I think this may often be true, it probably isn’t always. I personally think the emergent movement is more a repackaging than a theological shift. To me the Gospel is still simple, but that doesn’t mean Jesus didn’t have other ambitions and that we don’t have significant responsibility to follow his path. Regardless, this discussion is probably not as much for here as it’s more an inter-Christian one.
Comment by: Ir
26 03/30/06 11:18 AM | Comment Link |But NT Wright says that Romans has been misinterpreted by Protestants since Luther.
That sounds like a theological shift to me.
But I’m not sure the emergent movement and conservative evangelicals agree on what ‘the gospel’ is.
Yes; but for conservative evangelicals the bottom line is always “What do you believe“?, not “How are you behaving?” because it is belief, not behavior, which makes the difference between heaven and hell - so they teach.
I disagree, because as Hemant’s church survey’s have shown, atheists have a very different response to “Let’s work together to make the world a better place - we’ll do it because of Jesus; you can do it for whatever reason you like” as compared with “We’re going to heaven; you’re not”. I would say that it’s a discussion of relevance to any atheist who is wondering if there are Christians he/she might actually be able to join with in making the world a better place.
Comment by: Mike
27 03/30/06 11:52 AM | Comment Link |Hey Ir,
Thanks for reading my blog and thanks for the link to your own questions/journey. I found them thought provoking.
I find it kind of ironic that I’m constantly complaining about how conservative Christians are so fixated on abortion and homosexuality as these litmus test issues, as the only questions that really matter; and yet it seems that maybe they’re the only issues that really matter to atheists too. ;)
(Actually I’m sure that’s not true of you. I just thought it was funny.)
I don’t like the fact that they’ve become litmus test issues that people use to lable and pigeon hole others, and I usually don’t like giving straight answers about them because of that. I’d much rather talk about what Christians should think about poverty, or ecology, or racism, or immigration, or gender equality, or war and peace, or any of those issues that I think are much more frequently addressed in scripture than things like abortion and homosexuality.
But since you asked, I will give you as much of an answer as I’m comfortable with. But I should say up front that my opinions don’t necessarily reflect the opinions of everyone at Via Christus or even our “official” stance as a church. One the things that we’re trying to do with Via Christus is be a place where people of different viewpoints can come together and share their perspectives openly. We don’t want to have a “party line” on a lot of these controversial issues that everyone in the church must conform to. As the pastor I have my opinions, but that doesn’t mean everyone in the church necessarily has to agree with me. For instance, we have people in Via Christus right now who are very pro-life, and others who definitely skew more towards pro-choice. And we respect each other and discuss our differences openly.
But as I think about my approach to those two particular issues, I realize that the question for me has less to do with whether I think abortion and homosexuality are wrong, and has a lot more to do with how I think Christian ethics should relate to a secular/pluralist government. In other words, even if as a Christian I were to believe that abortion and homosexuality are always wrong, it doesn’t necessarily follow that I therefore think we should have laws against them. I definitely lean well towards the libertarian side when it comes to how much I believe the government should be legislating about issues of personal morality.
So, for instance, homosexuality. Regardless of whether or not I think it’s wrong according to the Bible, I see no reason whatsoever to make it illegal or to deny anything but full civil rights to gay people within a pluralistic society like our own. If gay people want to get married, that’s their business. I don’t see that it harms me or anyone else.
The rhetoric coming from the Religious Right about how gay marriages are destroying traditional marriage just strikes me as over the top absurd. Adultery and divorce are destroying traditional marriages, not two guys who move in together down the street.
Actually, when it comes to the legal definition of marriage, I’d like to take the issue to a deeper level. I don’t see why we should be letting the State dictate the definition of marriage to us at all, whether homosexual or heterosexual. Let the state issue Civil Unions, but in my view “marriage” is a religious and/or cultural institution. We should leave the definition of marriage in the hands of individual churches, denominations, and other cultural groups (like atheist organizations). Let each group decide for themselves what marriage is, and let them bless whatever kind of marriages they deem acceptable. The State should stay out of it altogether. It’s none of their business. I don’t want the State dictating to us how we have to perform the Eucharist or who’s allowed to take it, so why would I want them to dictate to me what another sacrament like marriage is supposed to look like?
As for the abortion issue, it’s a little stickier. I can see both sides. And as a Christian I feel like I have a responsibility to speak up for the weak and the voiceless and show compassion towards them - whether that’s scared, unwed pregnant teenagers or their unborn children. It’s a difficult thing.
Personally I tend to approach it pragmatically. I do believe that abortion takes life, and therefore I do want there to be fewer abortions; but I don’t think that outlawing abortion is really the best way to achieve that goal. I think making it illegal would just drive the practice underground. Most likely we’d end up with just as many abortions, done in unsafe, unsanitary conditions, endangering the life of the mother as well.
Personally I think the solution to reducing the actual number of abortions is not to reduce the supply (by making them illegal), but to reduce the demand for them. I think we can do this by addressing issues of poverty, making it easier for single moms to keep their babies. I think we can do this by making the process of adoption a lot easier and affordable. I think we can do this by starting a lot more ministries designed to support and care for young women who want to keep their babies but don’t have a support network (like those whose parents will disown them if they don’t get an abortion). And lots of other creative ideas.
Bottom line, I think we need a lot fewer Christians who protest outside abortion clinics, and lot more Christians who are willing to step up and say with all seriousness, as Mother Theresa once said, “If you don’t want your babies, give them to me. I want them. I’ll take them.”
So I guess you could say that I’m pro-life and pro-choice. I agree with the person who said that abortions should be “safe, legal, and rare.” The problem is that both sides are so polarized right now that there seems to be no hope of actually working together towards the goal of making abortion a legal choice that hopefully fewer and fewer people actually make.
And I’m sure I’ve already said too much and given both sides plenty of ammunition to label and pigeonhole me, and therefore write off whatever else I have to say.
But thanks for asking! ;)
-Mike
P.S. Are you in the Chicago area? You’re always welcome to come visit out here if you don’t mind making the trek. :)
Comment by: Ir
28 03/30/06 1:25 PM | Comment Link |Thanks, Mike. It seems possible to me that a community like Via Christus would resolve some of my problems with conservative evangelicalism. But for now, I’m happy with not belonging to a community of Jesus followers.
That seems like a difference between Via Christus and conservative evangelical churches, because - in my experience - they would judge a person who disagrees with their position on abortion and homosexuality as lacking a solid foundation in Bible knowledge. They would not accept that a right interpretation of the Bible could support other answers than theirs.
That position makes sense to me. I have trouble understanding the viewpoint that God has called Christians to go around annoying people who aren’t Christians by trying to bring into effect laws which make no sense to people who aren’t Christians.
I’m so glad to see you list unwed pregnant teenagers along with unborn children as voiceless because I think they are often pushed into having abortions by circumstances/family/boyfriends rather than being free to make a choice of their own.
If anything I think we owe more to the unwed teenagers - whose circumstances are partly because the world is broken and we corporately haven’t fixed it - than the unborn children we don’t know.
I remember thinking the very same thing years ago as a Christian thinking about Christian activism regarding abortion.
Yes - perhaps that’s true, unfortunately.
I suspect that the way Christians approach the issue of teenagers and sex may well increase rather than prevent unwanted pregnancies (and hence abortions). Not that I’m especially in favor of teenagers engaging in something that risky. But if they’re going to anyway I’d like them to use contraception.
Well…you’re just not paranoid enough, Mike ;) I think you need to read this (not really - unless you want a good example of paranoia masquerading behind Bible verses). The link was posted on here a few weeks ago under the blog entry “Gay asks why”. (If you put ‘gay’ in the search box the blog entry will be listed).
Labels - aren’t they great? ;)
Thanks - I am but I think it would take too much time out of ‘family time’ to visit (my family wouldn’t want to come).
Thanks for your detailed response, Mike!
Comment by: Westy
29 03/30/06 1:30 PM | Comment Link |The thing is, behavior will ALWAYS follow belief Biblically. You are right in that some churches do not always link the two correctly. But we must be careful that the Gospel remains the Gospel and not the Gospel+_____. (the message of Galatians) The behavior will follow if the belief is there.
As for the abortion, gay marriage discussion, it’s probably too long a discussion for me to get into right now, but I agree with the notion of making abortion rare. I do not agree, however, that gay marriage has nothing to do with weakening the institution of traditional marriage. Adultery and divorce do too, however, maybe moreso.
Comment by: Mike
30 03/30/06 1:36 PM | Comment Link |Sometimes it is a “repackaging” and sometimes it’s more than that. There are many streams or layers to the emerging church. McLaren gave a good taxonomy of different layers of the emerging church at a small group gathering I was at with him a few months back. You can read the summary here.
It’s not like there’s only one way to be emergent. There’s a lot of need for change on all levels of the church, from style to methodology to theology. Anyone who’s open to asking the questions I think is on the right track.
That’s cool. I don’t think what we’re saying is really that far different. And again, it’s not that I’m saying conservative evangelical views of the gospel are just all wrong. I just see them as incomplete.
Peace,
-Mike
Comment by: Westy
31 03/30/06 3:10 PM | Comment Link |I guess I agree. I think that’s the point I was trying to make. I think that many churches that may be labeled as “conservative evangelical” are not truly that different. Looking at B. McLaren’s list (which I found quite helpful in understanding), I think that many to most of the churches I’d identify as true Christian “conservative evangelical” churches meet 80-95% of these layers. For instance, is Saddleback truly that different than Mars Hill? One is probably identified as conservative evangelical and the other emergent?
Anyway, good discussion as always Mike and Ir.
Comment by: Mike
32 03/30/06 3:10 PM | Comment Link |Two questions my friend:
1) Does this statement match your actual experiences? What I mean is, have you known people that behave in a Christlike manner who don’t actually know Christ? Have you known people who do good things and behave well without being Christians?
and 2) How does your statement fit with Romans 2:14-15?
Comment by: Westy
33 03/30/06 8:57 PM | Comment Link |I do think my statement matches my experience. Albeit, each of our individual circles are probably small. I think to say someone behaves in a Christlike manner implies more than is humanly possible. No man apart from God can exhibit the fruits of the Spirit.
In regards to Romans 2:14-15, I think (and I’m no theologian here) that Paul is reminding us that all human beings have the moral law of God stamped on their heart. Despite that, we’re all imperfect, and thus guilty before God (1:18).
My previous statement only was meant to imply that a true Christian would exhibit it by their actions (James 2:14-19).
Comment by: Ir
34 03/31/06 6:29 AM | Comment Link |Mike, I expect you’ve read this:
It makes sense to me that the Kingdom should be like this; it should be like a tree where birds like to come and perch — and they can come and go with freedom and no-one grabs them and puts them in cages, or chases them away for not being the ‘right kind of bird’ or because they might somehow damage the tree by perching in it.
(I don’t think I’ve ever heard a sermon on this particular passage)
Comment by: Mike
35 03/31/06 9:49 PM | Comment Link |Shane Claiborne (a leader in a new movement of radical incarnational Christian communities among the poor and oppressed) has had some excellent things to say about this passage in several sermons I’ve heard from him, as well as in his new book, The Irresistible Revolution.
He talks about how the kingdom of God is a kingdom of love and compassion and service and simplicity and then describes how, like a mustard seed, it slowly spreads until it’s taken over everything. (But taken it over for goodness and love, not for domination and control.)
And he points out that the word in Greek for “birds” is actually “fowl” and refers to the unclean birds from Jewish law. In other words, these were the birds that any sane gardener would want to keep out, and yet Jesus is saying that the kingdom of God is a kingdom that welcomes the unclean, the outcasts, the rejected, the unloved.
Shane has other great things to say about the symbolism of mustard and the kingdom. I definitely recommend picking up a copy of his book.
-Mike
Comment by: Ir
36 04/1/06 7:07 AM | Comment Link |Thanks for the information and recommendation, Mike. I took a quick look at Shane’s site and the chapter of his new book which is online.
I see that he asked himself the question “What if Jesus really meant what he said?”
I like it when people ask that question.
Comment by: NCxian
37 04/1/06 8:10 AM | Comment Link |Thanks, Mike, for another book for my increasingly long list! I followed your links, and Shane Claiborne and his “new monastic” community seem to be another example of just how difficult it is to draw a tight circle around “Christians”. Just as, I can see from the discussions here, it is difficult to corral the notion of “atheists”. Maybe that is the best lesson we can take away from this whole discussion–hearing that a person is “Christian” or “Atheist” tells only a tiny bit about a person. It takes a commitment to some serious listening to hear what that designation may mean to that particular person.
Comment by: TXatheist
38 04/6/06 2:20 PM | Comment Link |Westy said:
That’s the part I don’t get. As an atheist my actions are different than xians? Really? Other than not believing in mind I don’t see any difference on a general level.