darby

I've seen Brian McLaren's name pop up a few times on different posts, and I thougt this topic would be an appropriate one to bring him up. Do most of you consider him to be "progressive?" I ask because I checked his church's website out, and this is what I came across under the "beliefs" section: This would not seem to jibe with some of you and your beliefs, I would think. While the methods seem to be contemporary, much of the stuff on the website appears pretty evangelical/conservative.

Curlytop-- I think you hit the nail on the head. I've said before, people (or churches) usually go to one extreme or the other in every area of theology/doctrine. Regarding sin the two camps are "don't ever mention sin, you might offend someone" and "call out sin wherever you see it, no matter if you crush people in the process." I love Jesus's example with the woman caught in adultery--he ministered grace to her, but he also told her to sin no more. Likewise, he pointed out that the woman at the well had 5 husbnads, and the one she was living with now was not her husband, but he extended grace to her. Jesus, whose very life defines love, was never soft on sin. He began his ministry calling for repentance.

Bro Rog (et al)- I've avoided replying to the Bush bashing on this site, but the article you reprinted prompted a few thoughts. A one sided article like this is akin to someone who argues that because Hilary Clinton is pro-choice, she hates life and wants to give women the right to have promiscous sex whenever they want, and not to be bothered with the responsibility of a baby, and because she wants to make money on the stock in abortion clinics she owns. I voted for Bush, but I am quite open to discussions on his policies (war, domestic spending, etc.) from a Christian viewpoint. But when I read articles like this (see them all the time) that suggest that Bush started the war because a few of his drinking buddies would profit, and he's not concerned about casualties; or that he and his rich friends sit around and make up laws to keep people down, so they can line their own pockets, I have to respond. I guess my point is that I disagree with some of my more liberal friends (here, or when I see my mother, the family liberal!), sometimes quite heatedly, but I usually don't think our differences are because they are evil, plotting other's demise, etc. I just think we have different ways of viewing/fixing things. For example, in the area of care for the poor, I am all for my preacher or a Christian friend challenging me to give more time, money, etc. to the poor. I DON'T want Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, or George Bush doing that, usually, because I don't trust the government to handle all the social ills of society. Obviously, government has to have programs for the poorest of the poor. But in my line of work, I see HUGE waste in government, layers of bureaucracy, and many "poor" getting subsidies with nicer cars than my family, TVs that take up the whole wall, and more shoes than Imelda Marcos. That's not just a generalization--I see that stuff weekly. Most government programs aren't very good at truly deciphering the real "poor." I much prefer the government letting me keep more of my money so I can give, rather than them confiscating my money to give wastefully or to causes I don't believe in. Just another rant to counter this idea that all (or even most) evangelical/conservatives are heartless money grubbers. It's just not true.

I am 37, married for 9 years TODAY! (Taking my lovely wife out to dinner/movie Saturday night). We have 2 sons, 5 and 4 from Guatemala, and a new 7 week old beautiful daughter. And 2 dogs--a lab/terrier mix, and a blue-tick hound. Needless to day, our house is a zoo, but lots of fun too. Sometimes my wife and I pass out from exhaustion at the end of the day, but we are very thankful for how the Lord has blessed us! We attend a non-denom, evangelical church in Charlotte, NC. I'm very drawn to the poor, esp. those in the Latino culture, and have made several trips to Guatemala, Mexico, and South Texas (where I lived for 2 years). Might be going to Romania in the spring to visit some missionaries. I enjoy running, the outdoors, home improvement (I'm in the real estate/construction business), reading (recently--Tony Campolo, Lewis, Jim Cymbala, others). I've been upfront from the start that I'm pretty conservative in my beliefs, but joined this site to dialogue, learn, discuss, be challenged, etc. The only problem--some of you guys are just way too smart for me--I start drooling about halfway through some of your in-depth posts--and I studied engineering in college!

Des, interesting you should talk about this. I saw a link this morning on USATODAY.com to a Christian Science Monitor article about this very idea. When I went back, I couldn't find it on usatoday, but did find it on christian science monitor. The title is "Troubled Spirit--Europe's struggle with Religion--What Place for God in Europe." Haven't finished reading it yet, but it looks interesting.

Cynthia- Not trying to split hairs here (as I begin splitting hairs!) but even being LIKE Him requires that we know what He is like. Will we be like Him when when say "no man comes to the Father except through Me"? Will we be like Him as He started His ministry by saying "Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand." Or when He talked about a narrow gate? Or only when we like what He says or does? My concern is when people (liberals, conservatives, whatever) say "we want to be like Jesus," and yet they will not deal with some attribute of His that they do not agree with (radical compassion to the poor, ministering to prostitutes, calling for repentance, allowing Himself to be worshipped, etc.) All sides do it. I do it. I just don't think it's right. You know, the more I post, the more I realize how repetitious I am. Sorry. I just seem to be passionate (and thus repeatedly beat the drum) about the same things. They're just that important to me. I'll try to come up with some new responses!

Des-Forgive me for the few times I am uninteresting! Ha! I enjoy Bonhoffer, but the question for me is not, "Who is Christ for us?" or even "for me," but rather, "Who is Christ?" It's a subtle difference, I know, but an important one, I think. I can make Him into what fits my needs at the time, but that might not be who He is. I need to accept Him for who He is. Cynthia, we AGREE that God is definitley Big, and Alethia, hope that week of yours goes great!

Des- The literal resurrection is where we ( me and Spong, and some others here) will have to disagree. Josh McDowell makes the great point in the book I referred to that the Disciples, who days before deserted Jesus (think Peter's denial), later boldly preached about his resurrection. Why? And early church history says that most died as Martyrs. Again, why? Why did Peter stand in the streets, preaching boldly, calling people to repentance, when he had been a coward earlier? He had seen his Savior risen. Paul says, "If Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up--if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! " I realize this is a big diffence between me and many of you. Let me add that when I disagree on YOUR board (which seems to be often , I appreciate how I am treated, esp. from Des, Cynthia, and Alethia.

Des, you're right...I made a (wrong) generalization. But as I read things from guys like Spong, there does seem to be a real de-emphazation (is that a word?) of Christ, i.e. no miracles, no virgin birth, no resurrection, etc. It comes awfully close to secular humanism. With some in the liberal/progressive camp, there seems to be the idea that "well, since fundamentals are all about Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, praise the name of Jesus," then we've got to do the opposite. That's why, although I disagree with some of their doctrine, I can agree with alot of what guys like Campolo and others, who are unabashedly "evangelical," say. They are not ashamed in the least of the name of Jesus (nor are many of you, I know). Someone in a post weeks ago mentioned the "Lord, Lunatic, or Liar" idea mentioned in Josh McDowell's book More than a Carpenter. No matter where you stand, I'd recommend this book. It really challenges the idea that someone can believe that Jesus was just a good moral teacher (which I'm sure, des, most on this board don't believe). He made some pretty big claims about who He was, He let people worship Him, He talked often of His requirement to be sacrificed, etc. Again, my desire (and I think,by scripture, the Father's) is that in the end, there not be a "liberal" church or movement, or a "conservative" one, but just a unified church movement, with Christians striving to worship Jesus and minister to all people as He showed us, using the Bible as our guide, not our learned ideas and feelings. (that's the hard part for all of us!

I'll beat my drum again...It's not an either/or situation. Jesus IS Lord AND God IS love. They are both completely true, and both found througout the Bible. People WORSHIPPED Jesus during His time on earth, and He never rebuked them, even knowing that only God is worthy of worship. Worship of Jesus is not a bad thing! From my view on the other side of the fence, this is where "liberal Christianity" (your term) breaks down--i.e., don't talk about Jesus. Jesus Himself said if we do not confess Him among men, He'll not confess in front of the Father. While friends, childcare, activities, fun, etc. are all good and should be a part of any vibrant ministry, people can get those at the local community center. Jesus steps in and changes peoples lives. My heart is that one day, the church, in unity, won't be pushing "left" or "right" but Jesus--the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, teacher, servant, great sacrifice, Judge of the living and the dead, Redeemer, Lamb of God, Messiah....

One of the 2 sacrements the Lord left us with was taking communion. Regarding this, Jesus said, "This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." Paul said, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes." I don't think it's an either/or question. Nothing Jesus said to his disciples told them to minimalize His death--in fact, they never really got that it was part of the plan. He even had to rebuke Peter when Peter objected that the Lord have to suffer and die. His death on our behalf is important, as is our call to minister to the suffering. Bro Rog, while I would agree much of the church is asleep to worldwide suffering, I think it could be argued that in many instances (Sudan, for one) the church stands alone in reaching the suffering. I know he's not real popular on this forum, but ask the people in southern Sudan what they think about Franklin Graham and Samaritan's Purse. He/they have been flying into hostile areas, setting up hospitals, getting bombed, etc., long before the UN has gotten off it's rear end. And there are many more good ministries doing the same. Where are other religious groups/agencies in the Sudan? Why don't we also call them out? Again, we're in agreement that more of the church needs to step up, but let's also acknowledge that many in the church are reaching out mightily in the name of the Lord. By the way, I want to see Hotel Ruwanda ASAP. .

Beach (or others) I'm curious...do most people who identify themselves as progressive not identify Jesus as Savior? I did not pick that up from the 8 points, or from most of the posts.

As an aside, Jim Cymbala, pastor of the Brooklyn Tabernacle Church, has a great book on faith, titled "Fresh Faith," I believe. In the book, he makes the point that it was faith that impressed Jesus the most during His time on earth. As people came to Him, sometimes just to touch the hem of His robe, it was their faith that impressed Him, and He routinely commented on it.

Alethia- Thanks for an afternoon laugh!!

Cynthia- I agree that faith is a state of trust, and it allows me to relax and float, versus pound the water. I disagree, however, that it is the opposite of clinging to belief. It is specifically my beliefs about Jesus, His love and mercy, and His character that sustains me. I cling to Him and hold tight, when everything else (circumstances, feelings) tells me to pull away, because of what I know about Him. He is the object of my faith.

Beach- It appears you've been hurt by some conservative or "far-right" churches in the past--and I'm sorry for that. But do you believe that conservative, non-denominational churches are all trying to "trick" and "brainwash" people? Are Spong and others "brainwashing" people when they espouse certain beliefs? You may not like President Bush, but is it possible that as he has studied the Bible and searched for meaning (as we all have), this is the path that makes the most sense to him? Do you truly think a person who has come to a conservative approach to Christianity could only do so as the result of trickery or brainwashing? You are painting with quite a broad stroke. By the way, I go to a non-denominational, conservative, grace-filled, multi-racial church with over 40 nations represented. I guess I drank the Kool-aid.

I heard it put another,similar way..."be a conduit, not a reservoir."

How true! And we've all got 'em, I think... Just curious...what preachers on TV are you watching?

A key distinction is that it is the "Love of money," not money, that becomes sinful. Do we own our money and possessions, or do they own us? I heard a pastor say that as Christians, we need to hold things "loosely." If God blesses me with a raise at work, Great! But if next week He tells me to part with it and give it to a specific ministry, I need to do that.

Beach- I'm posting as an outsider, in a way, since I don't hold to several of the 8 points and disagree with a good portion of what is written here. I realize, however, that I am a guest on a "progressive" board, and try to respect that when I write. In a larger sense your question relates, I think, to all Christians...progressive, conservative, evangelical, southern baptist, etc. You pick the label. The question is, "What is really important?" That I relate more to the "label" or qualifying part (progressive, conservative, baptist, liberal, etc) or the "christian" part. For me, although I fall into the conservative, evangelical camp, my devotion is completely to Christ, not the camp. If I'm challenged on this board or somewhere else in an idea that goes against the view of my camp, and seems to me to be more like Christ as revealed in the Bible, I'm breaking with my camp. Every time. That's why even though I read a great deal of Christian books, I do so with caution. I never want to elevate the authors I like (Franklin Graham, Jim Cymbala, etc. in my view, possibly Campolo, Spong, Borg in yours) over the Bible. Because they are all human, and have feet of clay, despite their best intentions. A friend heard an exchange at a Baptist church where a guy (deacon, elder or something) disagreed with what was being discussed. As he protested, someone said, "Brother Smith, that is in contradiction with what the Bible says on this matter." He replied, " I don't care what the Bible says, it's not in the Baptist Book of Order!" There's an example of a guy who has clearly put "camp" over Christ, IMO......

(not sure if I did that right) I sure hope not.... As evidenced by this post, it is obvious that the term "christian" means many things to many people. Probably more so in America, or the West, where many use that term as a common identifier similar to "I'm a Jew" or "I'm a Native American." These people could not tell you what they believe, they just know they're "christian" because Ma and Pa were, and they went to church every Easter and Christmas, and they certainly weren't Jewish, Muslim, or anything else, hence they must be "christian." Obviously, we see alot of this in the south. I think this is why some are choosing to use the term "Christ follower" now instead...they feel "christian" really does not mean anything anymore.

Des- You seem to feel the only dangerous teaching is that which leads to physical harm. I disagree. Paul warns many times, as when he is instructing Timothy on setting up a church, against false teaching. 2 Peter Chapter 2 is devoted entirely to destructive doctrines and false teachers, as much of 1 John is. John and Peter (along with James) were two of the apostles closest to Jesus--in hin"inner circle". If they, after all He had taught them, and all the miles they had walked with Him, all the things they had seen, felt this strongly about false doctrine and teaching, and the damage it can bring to the church, I think we would do well to be very keen to false teaching as well. The challenge for us all is to hone in on what is "false teaching."

Aletheia- Definitely not going anywhere...I'm enjoying the forum too much. We'll just keep on wrestling with these tough ideas together!

I mentioned in an earlier post that I read this board to understand where others come from, to be able to challenge my beliefs, etc. I earlier described myself as a "fundie," but realize (after an excellent post by someone) that I probably identify myself as an evangelical. Let me first start off by saying I agree with much of what I see posted--the extreme love, grace and mercy of God, the desire of many of you to reach out to people (especially the "outcasts" of the world, the same ones Jesus went after), the desire to research and firmly understand your beliefs, etc. I share all of those with you. After reading the 8 points, and many posts, however, I also disagree with many things that I read. There appears to be a tendency to "believe" in the goodness, grace, love, mercy, etc." of God, which again, I agree with wholeheartedly. I see people even posting verses which espouse these views. But I see a general denial of other, less attractive, views and verses from Jesus. I just went to the first few chapters of Matthew, and below are some verses from Jesus himself: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." In the sermon on the mount, He talks about the "danger of hellfire" and being "cast into hell." He also discusses the "narrow gate" to life "For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners TO REPENTANCE" "Therefore, whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before my Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father in heaven. Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword." I could go on, but you get my point. Jesus had harsh things to say to certain people. He also sounds "exclusive" at times. We can argue forever the specific meanings of these verses, but we could probably agree they show another side of Jesus. I will even confess I don't personally like some of those verses, but they are there, just the same. If we dismiss this side of God / Jesus, why are the other verses/characteristics not up for debate? Or even that Jesus ever lived or said any of the things attributed to him? Or do we just flip past the verses we don't like? I hope this post is received with the love with which it is written. I am certainly not trying to convince/convert anyone--I realize you are all pretty firm in your beliefs, as am I. I'm also not trying to "win" an arguement. I am just asking--if you poke (rightly so) at fundamentals or evangelicals about hypocrisy or not following Jesus' teachings regarding compassion, mercy, etc., is it not intellectually fair to ask what you do with this side of Jesus? In the meantime, I'll just keep trying my best to "walk as He walked."