EMAIL THIS PAGE
PRINT
RSS
|
So this is a little late. Forgive us at Conversant for not posting this news sooner. We're working hard to bring you the latest faith news and culture from a variety of different perspectives at a rapid pace but we need YOUR help. If you're coming here to read blogs, awesome, but get involved in the conversation by posting news articles and videos to our "Community Submitted News Section."
As a fan of Donald Miller and of the emergent church, I think it's great that the author of "Blue Like Jazz" was able to offer the closing benediction at the Democratic Convention this past Monday.
This leads me to a question I've been wrestling with for the past year: Why all the controversy? Paul's words in Ephesians 4:3-6 haunt me lately: "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." We've come so far from this. We've held so tightly to some commands, that we've completely forgotten this one. How does this appear to the outside world? Let me say that it is good to debate, to dialogue, to question, even to doubt...that's a huge part of this site! But at the end of the day, we can't end with that. Christ calls us to push furthe, beyond the complexities of culture, the limitations of our understanding, the seemingly immovable weight of our differences, and fellowship with any who call Christ, savior, working together to make this earthly place a little more like his kingdom. Listen to indy artist and Christian, Derek Webb's lyrics:
"who's your brother, who's your sister So let down the draw bridge! Hold your torch to the rain! And remember this election season, that one day we'll stand before God as neither a democrat or republican, emergent or traditional, but a valued and precious Son or Daughter of a King and a Kingdom. |
Comments
dannnnngggg CJ,
you wrote and posted this entry within like 8 minutes of us talking about it... that is talent
The funny thing is... On Sunday, my pastor basically said the same thing... we are talking about what Jesus would say to different people. This last Sunday was "What Would Jesus Say To Obama?" and next week is "What Would Jesus Say To McCain?" and the following week is "What Would Jesus Say To Oprah?"
I totally agree with you on this! AMEN!
Some of the stuff Donald Miller said just didn't sound right. It seems like he had to really tone down his prayer for those attending and watching. Obviously you can't go around bible thumping and expect people to be changed, but he misrepresented Jesus when he said things like:
"We need you to protect us from our enemies"
"Will you give us favor"
"help create a greater america"
"thank you for blessing us"
"Jesus gave his life against the forces of injustice."
I don't think that quotes 1-4 accuratly represent what Jesus wants from us. I think Jesus wants us to be servents to all and hope for blessings upon all nations and people. And the last quote, number 5, is just silly. Jesus didn't give his life up because of injustice, He gave His life as a sacrifice to atone for the sin of mankind. It wasn't just a political statement that Christ was making, nor was it just a social one. It extended much much further than that and I believe Donald Miller hugely misrepresented the message of Christ by saying what he did. I know, the prayer wasn't suppoesd to be a form of evangelism but we are called to be witnesses by everything we do, are we not? I am searching as I type this, but can not find the scripture that says we are to be distinguished as Christians, set apart noticeably. God wants that we are so noticeably Christ followers that one could not doubt it by the way we act. Donald Miller seemed by his prayer just like everyone else who uses God as a vending machine. Dolanld Miller even talked about that in Blue Like Jazz, how he used to treat God like a Slot Machine when he was young, hoping that God would line up the cherries for him and out would pop the jack-pot. It seems that he still is treating God that way, and teaching others to do the same by his own example.
Thanks for your comment man. I think you may have bipassed the overall point of the blog a little. I think you've misunderstood some of these quotes. I do think Don was trying to be respectful to everyone at the convention while mentioning Christ and his message to the world in his prayer. I think Christ did give his life against the forces of injustice in the fact that he sacrificed it for humanity's sin. Sin is injustice against God and humanity. When Christ gave his life, he allowed the world justification in front of God. I think Miller did a great job of offering a one-line gospel message that left people wanting to know more about who Jesus is.
I also don't think that when Miller asked God for things like a greater america, and protection from enemies, that he was treating God like a vending machine. He wasn't asking God for a new car or a smokin' hot girlfriend. He was asking God humbly to be God in America. Look at David's writings in the Psalms. God asked for deliverance of Israel from enemy hands over and over again and asked for the Nation to be raised up...and the Psalms are some of the greatest prayers of all time!
Finally, Miller thanks God for blessing us. This isn't a favor; it's a moment of gratitude. What's unbiblical about that?
Thanks again for posting and please continue to. Just trying to challenge your perspective a little. I think it's great we're having this conversation here on Conversant.
Absolutely, Christ died to make man just before God. My point is that in listening to Miller's prayer he says, "Jesus gave his life against the forces of injustice," as if the reason that Jesus died was because some act of injustice killed him. As if some group was being unjust and He died at their hands. We know that Christ did not die by the forces of injustice, but because He was born to die. He was born as was prophesied, the messiah, crucified to atone for all of man's sin and that is why He died. In essence, one of the things He was fighting for was justice, as is witnessed by the words He spoke in the gospels. But He wasn't crucified in a fight for justice; that just makes Him sound like a social activist. He was more than that, and Doanld Miller had the responsibility, in that public setting, since he brought it up, to be honest in his prayer about why Jesus died.
David, in the Psalms, was asking for the nation of God's chosen people to be protected and delivered. He wasn't asking because he was devoted to the nation itself, like a patriot, but because the nation was comprised of God's chosen ones and therefore worthy of protection and blessings. D. Miller should have asked for God's protection upon all men against the evil one, not just for America's protection, as if America deserves more protection than other nations. Why didn't He ask God, "Please protect mankind?" Instead D.Miller chose to single America out as a nation worthy of God's protection.
You are not alone in your assessment of Donald Miller's prayer. Contemporary Christian singer Steve Camp has some thoughts about the prayer in his article POLITICALLY CORRECT EMERGENT PRAYER ...the kind that only man hears and God ignores, which can be viewed on Worldview Network http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php?ArticleID=3894, and Steve Camp's blog http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2008/08/politically-correct-emergent-pra.... A little about Steve Camp at http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/bio.php/116/Steve_Camp.
When I first heard he prayer on CNN live, I initially thought the prayer was an authentic prayer to God (and I still do), but I noted that it was rather "PC" and how he stopped short of his own personal "pro-life" when he said "values Give us a passion to advance opportunities for the least of these, for widows and orphans, for single moms and children whose fathers have left." I don't think the "least of these" was even mentioned in this prayer.
I came from a family situation of which he prayed about and I can empathize from experience for the poor, single-mom's with several children, divorce, absent father (I don't know my biological father), abuse, etc. However, I can't help but believe that these are the not "the least of these." I thank God my mom didn't choose to abort me because she hadn't planned to have a child 8 and 12 years after her last two, wasn't married, worked as a waitress at a truck stop in a shanty town near a highway, and the father didn't want any part of the child he brought into the world by his (and her) selfish desires. We have begun to punish the unborn for the sins of their parents.
After reviewing the prayer over and over again, I have to agree to some extent with Steve Camps and others' observations, it was man-centered instead of God-centered. I also have to shamefully admit that his prayer sounded an awful lot like my selfish man-centered prayers. However, I think there was some God-centered desire in his prayer and I hope God will honor what is pleasing to Him.
I must admit that I did not catch the details of points 1-5 above because I was a little distracted by his straight-line eye contact into the TV camera throughout the prayer. It actually looked like he was either reading from a teleprompter or directing the prayer to the camera--which is what media trainers (I used to be one) teach people who are being interviewed or giving a speech on TV. Who am I to say what was going through his mind at the time, but it was noticable to me and the two people (one a Miller fan, one Miller neutral and one who does not know Miller from a hole in the wall). Did anyone else notice and/or care?
Actually, I just looked at the piece again and the teleprompter is visible from the back shot.
Hi CJ,
So I take it this blog was an extended call for unity in the Body of Christ, right? Unity between emergents, traditionals, republicans, democrats, etc.
You ask: "Why all the controversy?" And cite Eph. 4:3-6 where Paul calls for "unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace."
I'm with you in that. Peace and unity in the Body of Christ is imperative.
However, Paul also tells us (in 1 Thess 5:21-22) to "Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil." I think that includes issues of Christian doctrine and practice. We should preserve the truth and avoid the distortion of doctrine.
You seem to agree when you say "it is good to debate, to dialogue, to question, even to doubt...that's a huge part of this site!" So far so good. We're on the same page I think.
However, I think we disagree here. You say "at the end of the day, we can't end with that. Christ calls us to push further, beyond the complexities of culture, the limitations of our understanding, the seemingly immovable weight of our differences, and fellowship with any who call Christ, savior, working together to make this earthly place a little more like his kingdom."
I don't think Christ calls us to fellowship with any who call Christ "savior." Indeed, Christ himself tells us (in Matt 7:22-23) that many who call him "Lord," cast out demons in his name, and prophesy in his name actually don't know Christ, and will be rejected on the day of judgment.
So calling Christ "savior" or "Lord" does not guarantee Christ's fellowship, and so it shouldn't guarantee our fellowship either. Some people are wolves in sheep's clothing, and there are heretics who speak with silver tongues.
So to answer your question "Why all the controversy," some people think that self-professed Christians across the aisle are actually misled and misleading heretics, distorting doctrine, misrepresenting Christ, advocating immoral practices, etc. We aren't called as Christians to have fellowship with such people. In fact, it seems that we're called to avoid evil of any kind, including those sorts of evil.
You may disagree that there really is such evil across the aisle. That would explain why you advocate peace and unity. However, many people disagree with you. That's the source of the controversy, and the answer to your question. If you'd like to put an end to the controversy, you should prove that there really isn't this sort of evil across the aisle. That would be an interesting topic for future blogs.
Thanks Tamb that was well said. I just read and posted a news article called Jackals Among Ruins that addresses this (wolves in sheepskins) in length athttp://www.conversantlife.com/the-church/jackals-among-ruins, and can be found in its original form at http://www.preaching.com/resources/preaching_online/11581026/.
Thanks Tamb,
Lots of good points. I think you could say the same thing about both sides of the aisle: there's evil on both sides. So when did we start needing so many enemies? I was checking out jcubed's link from Steve Camp, and the guy is just flat out sarcastic and mean..and that's the heart of this blog. I can't put an end to the controversy because I know there is evil on both the left and right side of the aisle. While we shouldn't trust everyone who does things in the name of Jesus, we need to be able to find the good in what people who don't agree with us are doing and saying. The emergent movement has it's flaws, but so do those who follow a narrow orthodoxy...to call each of these broad categories evil and to treat them like a sworn enemy isn't what Christ calls us to do either.
CJ, it seems like you are just asking us to agree to disagree. You do this, I do that, but we both love Jesus so lets just get along. It can't work that way. God demands truth and righteousness, doesn't He?
Going along with what Tamb said before a few posts up,
1 Cor 5:11- " But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat."
Hey CJ. I have to admit that Steve Camp's blog was sarcastic. I recently posted a social news item http://www.conversantlife.com/the-church/mark-driscoll-on-harsh-language that is linked to John Piper's website, which was linked to Mark Driscoll's (Emergent Church personality) website. The article is about the use of harsh words and sarcasm in the bible. I found it an interesting read.
It seems that Mark Driscoll is trying to get out of the emerging stream or lake and has labeled some of his fellow emergent church personalities heretics (but still friends) and calls them out (Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, and Rob Bell) in a video I posted recently called State of the Pulpit http://www.conversantlife.com/the-church/mark-driscoll-on-the-emerging-c.... He said he wouldn't let them preach in his church. I can't imagine someone else knowing more about the emergent church movement, their beliefs, and their personalities that Mark Driscoll (because of his proximity to the movement).
I only learned of the EC movement in last 40 days or so, but I'm reading all I can at the request of another younger brother in this community. I'm glad he called me out on that, instead of me relying on others to research and form ideas that I may or may not agree with. I have to thank him, because it only served to confirm and strengthen my beliefs and my resolve to expose the false teaching when I can.
Didn't all of these EC personalities start the conversation together in 1996? It seems after a dozen years Mark Driscoll is finding his way back to reformed theology. I think Mark Driscoll concisely explains why conservative evangelical Christians are so concerned about the EC movement. I also think that is why Christians such as Steve Camp use harsh words, because they see the contempt for the word of God by many EC personalities and followers and see a movement that is in opposition to the cross of Christ. On the flip side of the coin, I also read, see, and hear the EC personalities doing exactly the same thing and are quite angry, critical, sarcastic, etc. as well.
I have to agree with Tamb and Ridley in a lot of respects. How can you fellowship with someone that denies the basic fundamental tenants of our faith, the Christian faith, and in some instances deny that the word of God is entirely trustworthy? And promote such beliefs that hell doesn't exist, God/Jesus/Holy Spirit are only concerned about certain sins (social justice or injustice) and not concerned with others, e.g., fornication, homosexuality (GLBT), abortion, trying to bring about unity (not just with Christian denominations and movements, but other religions) with false-harmony at the sake of polluting the gospel and the body of Christ, people can believe in Jesus or follow way of Jesus and yet remain in their religions (context of their religions) as Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, was Jesus really born of a virgin, believe that the bible was constructed incorrectly by our Christian forefathers and emergents need to reconstruct the gospel correctly, there is no absolute truth, only relative truth that is unique to the cohort or community in which you commune, and the list goes on.
Believe me I don't want to be at odds with my brothers and sisters in Christ, and I'm sure they don't either. However, we have to rightly divide the word of Truth. I think the only way that can happen is with civil dialog as Os Guinness suggests
http://www.conversantlife.com/the-church/the-case-for-civility-author-in.... Agreeing to disagree always leaves someone in the wrong and in this case being wrong can have eternal consequences.
Would one of the forums be a much better place for this type of long and arduous discuss (conversation if you will)? I know there are many emergents on this site and a few that are official featured Conversant Life Bloggers like yourself and some amateurs like myself, however, I'm not emergent. I think there a couple of conservatives in this community, that may want to be part of the conversation too, or at least I would hope they would participate. Since you are official, maybe you can move this discussion over to a forum? I have no college degree of any type, I'm no theologian, thinker, or intellectual like many in this community are, but I do believe the the word of God is infallible, I am filled with the Holy Spirit, I can read the word of God, I have a Strong's and Young's Concordance and a couple bible commentaries that can help me, and I'm sure there are plenty in this community that would help a stumbling brother in the Lord understand he word of God.
I really appreciate your open-mindedness in discussing the EC movement. Thanks
>>I think you could say the same thing about both sides of the aisle: there's evil on both sides.>>
Sure, I agree. But then you have an even stronger explanation of why there's so much controversy.
>>So when did we start needing so many enemies?>>
Hm. I'm confused. You just agreed that there is evil on both sides of the aisle. And I take it we should agree with that Biblical injunction to avoid evil. But here you ask why we "need" so many enemies, as if it were up to us, as if we're fabricating this evil for some reason. So yeah, I just don't think that's an appropriate question. It's not that we need enemies. We just find ourselves in the unfortunate situation of having many enemies of the gospel all around us. I wish things were otherwise, but they aren't.
>>I was checking out jcubed's link from Steve Camp, and the guy is just flat out sarcastic and mean..and that's the heart of this blog.>>
Oh, so the blog wasn't necessarily a call to peace and unity, but rather a call to civility? If so, I'm all aboard. But then I'm confused as to why you call us to "fellowship" in your blog, and not just to civility.
>>While we shouldn't trust everyone who does things in the name of Jesus, we need to be able to find the good in what people who don't agree with us are doing and saying.>>
Sure, I guess that would go a long way toward civility. But I take it we also agree that we shouldn't have fellowship with people we know are doing really evil stuff. I guess your point is that we should just be careful to accurately portray those we disagree with, and not unfairly demonize them. Is that what you're saying?
>>The emergent movement has it's flaws, but so do those who follow a narrow orthodoxy...>>
I don't really get what you mean by a "narrow" orthodoxy. Is there a "wide" orthodoxy? I would have thought there's just orthodoxy, period, and that we should follow it regardless of its dimensions. What do you mean here?
>>to call each of these broad categories evil and to treat them like a sworn enemy isn't what Christ calls us to do either.>>
Sure, I agree. Who do you think is doing that?
It is never easy applying the ideals of religious expectations on the messy work of politics. Politicians are the winners of the original American Idol competition, and do their best to represent the different views of their constituents, party, and personal convictions. Do I vote for Barack Obama because his tax policy reflects a biblical economic principle of fairly shared resources? Do I vote for John McCain because he has committed to the promotion of abortion restrictions?
In the end, Christians are coming to different conclusions concerning how they vote, and how God might feel about their decision. Making a political decision that imperfectly favors one or more policies that reflect God's desire for his children does not constitute heresy. It is a reflection of discipleship. Personally, I think you would find Jesus in the aisle between the two parties speaking in parables (that he would have to explain to the disciples later) and (who still won't get it).