This post is going to be a little more geared towards Christians I suppose but of course any one is welcome and encouraged to partake in any discussions on this blog.
I tend to visit more progressive Christian blogs than fundamental ones. In fact I don't really visit any fundamental Christian blogs. I certainly wouldn't describe myself as either progressive Christian or fundamental. In the past I've felt alienated by the traditional church because of many of their modernist practices that the Emergent Church would protest to. However, at the same time I'm quite put off by the current trend of deconstruction-ism that the Emergent Church holds so tightly to, especially when it comes to basic theology.
So all in all I'm some what outside of any of the current Christian trends. And really that's quite okay with me. And the reason I visit so many of these progressive blogs is because I really do value the opinions of others and appreciate the fact that many of these people are forming ideas and putting words to their thoughts. It's certainly much more interesting than the standard run of Christian cliché. And I truly do hold to the notion that an informed opinion of dissent is much more valuable than an uninformed opinion that might agree with my own.
But more than once in a while I'll come across a blog post that is so foreign to me that it seems like we worship different Gods.
Now there's an idea that has been brewing in my mind for some time and I don't want to get into at this point but I'll reveal enough to say it has to do with the ongoing debate between factions within the Christian Church. And specifically how do we address differences in what we believe with respect and maintain fellowship. But before that can even be addressed the question that always sticks in my head is; Who is the Church?
In other words if you were to hold a discussion between other Christians about things like theology, Christ, or political ideology and the common thread were that you were all there calling yourself Christians what ideas would you rule out? What's the border between the ones you would allow in the round table discussion and the ones you'd ask to step away?
Now I'd like to stay away from the obvious ones like say a person who calls themselves a Christian but likes to talk about the glory of Satan himself. Things like that. But what about things that are closer to the border? Like could you accept a Christian who doesn't think the Bible holds absolute truth? Or a Christian who doesn't think Christ is the only way to salvation? Or how about one who says God hates gays?
Where is your line? Or do you even have a line?
Hmmm.
P.S. I've decided I'll put up a new song in the Songs to Love feature after I get a couple of comments about each song. This rule does not pertain to Crystal who I already know hates all of my music.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
I'm really sick and it's late so I don't have the energy to reply to this post. BUT I just had to say that I DO NOT hate ALL of your music!! You have introduced me to so many of my favorite bands/music. Bands/music that I would have never of had the pleasure of knowing if it wasn't for you. Anyway I just wanted to say that.
K, bye.
We had a similar discussion in our small group a few weeks ago. Someone asked about other religions, and what was the truth. I believe that Jesus is the only way to God. He was very clear about that in the Bible. The Bible contains absolute truth, but there are many interpretations of the Bible, and people generally are able to dig through and find a verse or two to support just about any platform (except satanism, I think).
So (now that you know why I call myself a rambler) to sum up. I think as long as you believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins, and that is the act of redemption for a lost world, you can sit at my table and openly discuss the finer points of Christianity.
I enjoy a lively discussion with many different denominations. But the bottom line is if it doesn't interfere with the fact that Jesus died for my sins, I don't have a problem with it.
Yeah Sammy that’s definitely one of my delineating factors as well. I just don’t see a way around total dependence on Christ, for whatever you consider salvation to be.
To clarify for everyone, I’m not saying I wouldn’t consider this hypothetical person a friend, or that it would even prevent me from discussing any type of subject matter. I’m just saying there are things that I consider absolute truth and that if a person came to be and said they were a Christian that believed something like multiple Gods or something I wouldn’t be able to get past that in my mind. Like whatever we talked about after that I would have this mental block that would always come back to that belief, and I just couldn’t wrap my mind around in the frame of Christianity. That their frame of reference to what is truth would be so far twisted from my own that it would too distracting for me to truly understand them, or feel understood.
So yeah, that was to clarify.
Do me a favor and go visit "Towards Jerusalem" on my blogroll. (if you have the time). He has this post about Matthew and Luke "fixing" Mark's theology and grammar in their gospels (because both Matthew and Luke copied like 50% of Mark's gospel into their own). It's an interesting concept and something to think about.
Anyhoo!
My hubby attends Cigar Night every Sunday night. It's a bunch of men folk from our church sitting around talking about doctrine and theology.
I usually crash their Man Party and sit in on their discussions. We have discussed some of those key elements of Christianity that are essential to salvation.
1. Must believe in Grace and the work of the cross--no works will secure your position in Heaven--not Baptisim, not charity, not witnessing....etc. Christ alone.
2. Must believe in the Trinity--God, Son, Holy Spirit. In other words: Christ is God in the flesh. Jesus was both man and God. Mysterious--but true.
3. Must believe in the Virgin Birth. Many Progressive Christians do not believe Christ was born unto a virgin. If Christ had an earthly father, then Christ would have inherited original sin. God is Christ's Father.
4. The Bible is the only book you need. Christians that rely on the secondary works of man more than the Bible are selling something funky.
5. Progressive Christians that forsake the fellowship of the church are suspicious. If they attend a home church--that's weird to me. Home churches usually have little to no accountability and have usually left a church under some kind of strain. A Christian that does not have good relationships or broken relationships with other Christians, need to be examined. Paul tells us to not forsake the fellowship and there is a lot of wisdom in that. Personal, spiritual accountability and being in submission to the elders/pastor of your church is important and Christians that have a problem with that, usually have a problem or flaw in their doctrine. Even Christ was in submission to the Father. God enjoys setting up headship and leadership.
I probably could think of more but this is a good start.
Sadie,
Well it’s interesting that you mention home church, though I’ve not heard it attributed to progressive Christianity. I have heard it in conjunction to the Emergent Church movement, but I’ve been hesitant to combine the Emergent Church and progressive Christianity because as I understand it they are two different entities, though I suppose there is some overlap.
At any rate, it’s interesting to me that you would list that under “essential to salvation.” Or at least the notion of forsaking the fellowship of the church. By this it seems you are referring to church as a meeting place rather than a group of people. And I’d have to ask you why you think that church structure is so important to salvation? I don’t want to put words in your mouth, because you didn’t actually say it was vital to salvation but you did precede your list with things “essential to salvation.”
I think maybe you meant essential to salvation up to that point and just generally disagree with the home church part. Or maybe just thought those people were weird. And for the most part we are. By “we” I mean those of us who have at one time or another left the traditional form of church and tried something we felt was closer to God’s idea of what “church” ought to be. For instance meeting at a home in a smaller more intimate, and open forum type setting. We met in a friend’s house for almost a year a few years a go. It was a good experience for us but ultimately the families meeting were just too far apart and we had to leave that.
Also you listed the Virgin Birth, but added to it the doctrine of Original Sin. I was wondering if they were dependant upon each other? I believe quite firmly in the idea of the Virgin birth but reject the doctrine of Original Sin as a false doctrine and its sister idea of a Sinful Nature as a logical fallacy.
So would I be rejected from your idea of Christianity based on those thoughts? I don’t mean to put you on the spot with that question; I’m really just trying to understand you.
I did get the chance to look at your friend’s blog and in the past that’s the kind of debate I would jump right into foaming at the mouth. However, I’ve learned (through personally offending close friends of mine) that such debates only cause distance instead of learning. More so through my methods of debate I guess than the debate itself. I’m really trying to change that about myself and figure out how to have those discussions without respect.
Those “problems” that he found are certainly nothing new. You can Google any of them and a dozen different apologetics sites with logical answers to them that don’t require you “an element of suspended disbelief” as he puts it.
At any rate, it’s interesting to me that you would list that under “essential to salvation.” Or at least the notion of forsaking the fellowship of the church. By this it seems you are referring to church as a meeting place rather than a group of people. And I’d have to ask you why you think that church structure is so important to salvation? I don’t want to put words in your mouth, because you didn’t actually say it was vital to salvation but you did precede your list with things “essential to salvation.”
I know it's possible for people to have a real relationship with God and be saved without attending church. Personally, I think Paul was worning us that it's dangerous ground to do so.
Accountability is huge. Would you agree? I'm sure you would. You could say that a small group of people meeting in someone's home could be in perfect accountability to each other.
I guess, for me, the gray area comes with the construction of leadership and authority. It's easy for a small group of people to start getting off track with their doctrine and become cultish. With a large church, you get visitors and newcomers all the time. If there is something strange going on, people will see it and hopefully question it. This puts a lot of accountability and responsibility on the church elders to be legit about their teachings.
And no, I'm not putting emphasis on the building rather than the "church" being about the body of Christ. We are all members of the same body, I get that--no matter where we fellowship.
I might be a little bias against the home church because of some people that I am close to.
They left the church harboring some bad blood and started a home church. A few of us had some encounters with these people. You know that scripture that says to go to a brother if they are in sin with two, maybe three people and then if they still don't repent, go to the elders.
Well, they wouldn't meet with our elders and they went to home church that had no authority figures so we just let it go and that felt wrong. It's still ugly.
I don't think God has been vauge about how believers are to gather.
It has always been at a common place.
The temple. The Tabernacle.
God specifically wanted Moses to build the Tabernacle for the gathering.
Back in the day, people had to walk long distances to get to the meeting. There wasn't the choice of like three or four different churches on each block. There was one and if you had a problem with a teaching or with a brother--you delt with it because there was no other choice unless you picked up your stuff and moved to the next town/village.
I think that's a HUGE problem in today's culture. We have too many choices. If we don't like something, we can leave and not deal with one another and that's sin.
I'm not saying that fellowshipping in private homes is a BAD thing. We have potlucks and BBQs and we break bread in each other's homes every week.
It's good to keep it casual and keep it going all week--not just Sunday. However, I made the point that God is big on submission to authority and about having accountability and leadership.
Why wouldn't He want that kind of system for our gathering?
Paul talks a great length on orderly church practices because it's important.
*rant over*
I'll have to deal with the virgin birth/original sin thing later.
:)
Hi Scott, interesting conversation! Just wanted to say thanks for the heads up on the Sufjan song - very cool. Malachy was inspired to do a weird zombie dance.
ok, I listened to the song... very mellow, I liked it. I am always afraid of listening to versions of our national anthem, because a lot of artists murder it trying to make it their own.
Scott ~ I don't mean to get off topic (because I am enjoying the conversation here very much!!!)but I wanted to comment about the Sufjan song. Scott I LOVE this version of the Star Spangled Banner, it's too much awesome. Thanks for posting it!!!
Anyhoo, this is a bit off topic too. I just wanted to say that I TOTALLY hear what you are saying Sadie and it makes perfect sense to me why you feel the way you do about home church. You also did a great job of explaining it too. =o)
I don't know if this is relevant or not but Scott and I go to "Mega" church Willow Creek in Barrington. And they are really trying to help make our church feel more intimate. They are doing all of this amazing stuff with neighborhoods and getting Willow neighbors together and just so much. One thing I am excited about that they are going to try is having "home church" (not sure if that is what they are calling it though) with our neighbors during the week. We will all gather in homes and watch the what we call New Community (Weds. night service for believers) message that is being taught at the "big church" i.e. Willow. And then after we all watch it we can have fellowship with our neighbors and discuss the message. I think if this works out and actually happens it will be so great. Also I think there will be community pastors at the homes so there will be that kind of accountability. Anyway I just wanted to share that. Not sure it applies or anything just talking out loud...
Carry on!
well I don't want this to turn into a weird issue between us because I totally LOVE you guys.
Just wanted to say that...
Crystal--we have something like that during the summer. It's called Summer Six.
It's six couples (families) that get together and do dinners at each other's homes.
We do a bible study and fellowship.
It's only twice a month though and the six couples rotate the house they all go to. There are like 10 groups of 6. Is this all confusing?
*laughing*
anyhoo...
Oh Sadie your so sweet! There is NO issue!! I think this is just a healthy conversation, seriously! I'm lovin' it. I know that Scott really appreciates a good conversation that can be just that a very nice adult discussion too. So anyhoo, just wanted to say that you don't have to worry about any issues because we LOVE you too!!!
And no it wasn't confusing at all what you said about Summer Six. I think it sounds a lot like what Willow is going to try and do. Because I know that our neighborhood leaders told us that they want to rotate houses and stuff too.
I said I wanted to address the issue of the virgin birth and original sin and why it's important to salvation.
Adam and Eve sinned and that was the beginning of the fall of man. Man died spiritually--
We pass this fallen nature down to our children through birth.
It's otherwise known as "Vipers in Diapers".
:)
Although my 8 month old baby does not "sin" in the same sense we adults do; he will. He is an enemy of God right now.
Does that mean babies who die at his age go to hell?
I don't believe so.
God knows the hearts of men and a baby's heart must be relatively pure.
Anyways,
The virgin birth was proof that salvation could not come from us. We humans did not produce sinless perfection. God alone is perfect and His son was to be the only sinless human.
He achieved this by the virgin birth.
I think it's essential to salvation because
a. we have to realize that we are born slaves to sin
b. salvation comes from God alone.
c. No human is perfect (except Christ--the NEW Adam)
Oh, and thanks Crystal for clarifying. I don't like to get all heavy with friends on doctrine unless we are outside, under the stars, eating Mexican food and sipping margaritas. Period.
:)
Accountability is huge. Would you agree?
I would, but I would argue that personal accountability is much easier to achieve in close personal relationships with a few close friends who know you rather than seeing a few acquaintances at church for a couple hours every Sunday. Now this idea you have of group accountability is an interesting one and one that I’ll admit I haven’t considered. I can see your point about a small group of isolated followers falling into cultish ideas, but I’m not sure it’s any different for large churches when I look around and see so many Word of Faith and Prosperity theology churches thriving.
I personally think you’re putting too much stock in the common place theory as those were Old Testament ceremonial gathering places and were required by the Law. I personally think such things are no longer required but I know a lot of really smart people disagree with me on that so it’s not really a sticking point for me.
I really, really like what you said about submission to elders and church leaders though. It’s another point I hadn’t thought of before and a really fascinating one.
I’ll say that my main “problem” (and I use the term loosely) with the traditional is not the leadership structure but just the ceremony of going, spending a few minutes finding your seat, sing a couple songs and have someone talk at you for an hour. It’s just never worked for me. In truth I have no idea what church would look like if I had my say, but I just know I’d like it to be more open and more about people actually communicating than just being talked at.
But it’s really not something I protest about or anything. I mean we go to church every week to a traditional service, I’m just saying I can understand why people want to try something different.
I’ll get to the sin stuff later. I have a lot of thoughts on it and I’ve never really organized them and written them out so I think I’ll probably make that my next blog post. Tomorrow.
Scott, I think you might enjoy some of our (cigar night) conversations about a service that was more centered around the Love Feast. I thought it sounded interesting but I have to admit that I don't know all that would entail around this. It represents the Biblical model that the early Church gave us where the elders serve everyone some food and while we eat we fellowship and maybe hear a teaching.
On this whole subject I guess you could have a set of rules which might become dangerous, because its never been up to us. My very hazy line has its foundation in humility towards God. I don't like to see people try to change who He is because they don't agree with something. It shows a lack of humility to our creator and sustainer. Thats all for now, to bed with me. Oh yeah, in case you didn't know I am the worse half of Sadie.
Dan, the Sadie man ~ What you said here...
" I don't like to see people try to change who He is because they don't agree with something. It shows a lack of humility to our creator and sustainer.
…I totally and whole heartedly agree with. What a beautiful way to say it too. Ya wow.
=oD
I would, but I would argue that personal accountability is much easier to achieve in close personal relationships with a few close friends who know you rather than seeing a few acquaintances at church for a couple hours every Sunday.
Oh, I would totally agree with that. We have just been lucky to find a tight knit church where a lot of the families are close.
Now this idea you have of group accountability is an interesting one and one that I’ll admit I haven’t considered. I can see your point about a small group of isolated followers falling into cultish ideas, but I’m not sure it’s any different for large churches when I look around and see so many Word of Faith and Prosperity theology churches thriving.
Yeah. I mean, it's totally possible for large churches to get cultish too but the way I see it, they are open to the public and people can walk in at any time and call the congreation to the mat about something. Also, if the church has a lot of people leaving or saying bad things about it--you know something is rotten in Denmark.
Home churches are like an island. Nobody knows.
I might be putting a lot of stock in the whole "gathering" of the Old Testament but only because I see that same stock bearing witness in the New Testament too. Paul had much to say about the proper organization of the fellowship.
I'm thrilled that you recieved my point about submission to the elders. It's a huge point for Dan and I. We were going to a Calvary Bible church that was lead by a head pastor. We saw a lot of strange goings on there.
We were pretty new Christians though and we left that church to go where most of my family was going--not for any particular reason.
Our church now is not lead by a head pastor but by plural eldership. There are about 5 elders that have the duty of teaching on Sundays and being responsible for headship of the church.
I see a huge difference in the dynamic of authority and I have found that this plural eldership model is Biblical.
My hubby is right: You would really like the idea of the Love Feast.
The early church used to eat together as they heard a message.
It was more casual and there probably was more discussion. I hear what you're saying about the whole ceremony surrounding the church gathering feels mechanical.
I get that.
Hello Scott, This post might be a little late, but what the heck I’ll give it a try........
WOW! Fascinating conversation by all parties! I hear what you’re saying and I think the “lively art of conversation” is wonderful. But I don’t want to get to far away from Jesus.
Forgive my age, but I guess my favorite part of Church is some of the “traditional” stuff. What I’m hearing you say is you dislike the traditional Church; you want more of everyone’s opinions, or input. One person up there teaching is for you….. “just being talked at”. Boy, that’s a harsh adjective. Do you feel like anytime you are learning (as in school) you are just being talked at?
I love all people having an opinion, but don’t call that the Church.
That sounds more like “Wikipedia” doesn’t it?
Wiki-Church?
I know you like that website. It scares me. If everyone adds to it, puts in their two cents worth, how do I separate the truth from opinion?
“SEEK THE TRUTH”
(I love that movie trailer, have you seen it? Great advertising, but what an oxymoron.)
I feel the structure keeps us closer to the truth. Closer to Jesus.
Give me Jesus, you can have the rest.
Love Dad
__________________________________________________
Oh and as for your taste in music? Well I guess I have to agree with this guy’s blog.
He has my kind of taste in music. Did you see his favorite musicians?
Peter's favorite musicians
Isn't it possible the the scribes inserted there own thoughts in the bible from time to time?
“I don’t think so”
How could this book come together so beautifully, no contradictions, Old Testament and New are linked together so much? This had to be God inspired. If authors were inserting their own opinions it wouldn’t work.
Do you know it’s authors background………………………………
Imagine questioning forty different people on their religious views: people from every socio-economic background ...(ranging from extreme poverty to immense wealth) in nearly every walk of life ...(kings and paupers, statesmen and fishermen, poets and physicians)
on three separate continents ...
(Asia, Africa, and Europe)
in three different languages ...
(Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic)
taking several forms ...
(poetry, history, civil and criminal law, ethics, didactic, parable, biography, prophecy, personal correspondence ...)
And spanning a period of over a thousand years! Over 70 generations.
The more you investigate it, the more you will be amazed,
I googled “Can I trust the Bible?” on the recommendation of a friend, Suzanne.
http://www.gospeloutreach.net/bible.html
Post a Comment