
It’s happened again. Another self-avowed Christian fundamentalist has ’shunned’ me, invoking the doctrine of Biblical Separation. I figured it was about time to learn how I kept breaking this law so I went to a few fundamentalist (their label) websites to get an idea.
Here are two common points;
Biblical separation is the acknowledgment that God has called believers out of the world to maintain a personal and corporate purity in the midst of sinful culture. Biblical separation is usually considered in two divisions: personal and ecclesiastical.
and/or
A Biblical Separatist is a Christian who withdraws from or will not associate nor cooperate with a church, group, body, organization or individual that :
1. Includes unbelievers and advocates teachings and practices which are contrary to scripture
2. Is apostate and advances apostate teachings and practices
3. Includes believers who aid, sanction, and advance apostates by their alignment and cooperation with them
4. Includes believers professing to be Christians who disobey and compromise clear Biblical teaching.
So what does a Biblical Separatist look like?
A Biblical Separatist is a Christian who withdraws or will not cooperate with an established church (organization or individual) that 1) includes unbelievers and advocates godless philosophies and practices, and/or 2) is apostate and propagates apostate teachings and practices, or 3) those believers that aid and sanction apostates by their alignment and cooperation with them, and/or 4) individual believers that profess to be Christians but disobey and compromise clear Bible teachings and will not repent.
The most obvious Biblical Separatists out there are the ones who, stereotypically, eschew exposure to all forms of today’s pop culture (although, ironically, those things that are on the approved list were once yesterday’s pop culture)
The influence of worldliness through fashion, music, literature, the media in all its forms, philosophies, attitudes, etc., destroys the believer’s sensitivity to what is truly acceptable to God and what is not. “Christian” rock, “Christian” psychology, worldly strategies of evangelism and ministry-these and many more examples could be given of how far many have strayed from truly Bible-based moorings. Dealing with these issues is not “Legalism,” but rather it is seeking to apply Biblical principles of godliness to our everyday Christian walk and witness. Separation from the worldliness that feeds the old nature and sears the conscience is vital.
http://www.feasite.org/Tracts/fbcsepr1.htm
Well, that’s one thing – avoiding those cultural temptations that might pull one astray. But what about avoiding those things of the world that might, in the process, require a more significant sacrifice? What if you work for a company that is less than moral in their dealings? What if your clothing is made by Chinese slave labor? What if the Christian books you buy were authored by people who might talk the talk, but when they walk they walk over others? What if your own church’s growth has taken place at the expense of those in your community?
Why should any Christian reasonably see merit in Biblical Separation? More from the Fundamental Evangelical Association:
There are at least four reasons why separation from disobedient brethren is required by God;
First, this type of discipline is necessary in the local church fellowship in order to maintain church purity.
Obviously this fellowship is working under the presumption that their Biblical view is pure, an idea that is not always defensible.
Second, separation from a disobedient brother is for his spiritual well-being.
I think this point is debatable. The practice of “shunning” someone is hardly guaranteed to show that person the ‘light’. If anything, the person moves farther away from those who shunned him. Besides, perhaps the shunning occurs because the person realizes that the community’s first premise is incorrect. Jesus himself, would likely be shunned by many of these congregations.
The third reason for practicing Biblical separation is the desire for a “full reward” at the appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ.
This is not a very selfless attitude. Leave the dissenters to their demise while content in their own deserving reward.
Finally, separation from disobedient brethren is necessary in order to maintain a strong, consistent testimony in the midst of theological turmoil and confusion.
Which allows for the security and comfort that comes with the the certaintyof knowing their spiritual foundation is stable. But if the foundation is that strong, why such concern over contact with those who may disagree? Unfortunately, Biblical Separation only points out that their foundation is not only built on sand, but is a house of cards.
In no way am I trying to evoke any sympathy for the person who has been shunned. It most probably is for the benefit of their spiritual well-being, but not in the way that the fundamentalist sees it. In fact, it is much more likely that, when it comes to booting out disagreeable questioners, these anxious church folk are a day late and a dollar short. I doubt if most of those people who find themselves standing on the outside of fundamentalist congregations are there under protest.
I wonder, why they are more worried that my heretical ideas might infect their minds, as opposed to their ’sound’ doctrine influencing my own.










OUCH! Well, maybe, if it weren’t sorta sad, maybe you could see it as saving you from being infected with their faulty views on love, service, evangelism….? Sorry bro’, I hate this kind of stuff – it sucks. I mean, I have ‘ended’ friendships before, (friendships might be too strong a word) but it had more to do with the general toxicity of the relationship, not their doctrinal beliefs etc. ((hugs)) to you and have a good weekend.
Janice
By: Janice on June 20, 2008
at 12:46 pm
oh, I should add that I’ve been ’shunned’ by a majority of my old ‘friends’ (christian) online over the past two years. I guess I’m a little too radical for them now. So I feel for ya. For me, it smarts – even though I can put it in perspective – it still smarts.
Janice
By: Janice on June 20, 2008
at 12:48 pm
Obviously this fellowship is working under the presumption that their Biblical view is pure, an idea that is not always defensible.
I agree with you on this one. I’m not sure that ‘biblical separation’ is a biblical concept. There will always be a conflict between the truth/validity of Scriptural concepts and the truth/validity of my interpretation of those Scriptual concepts. Unfortunately, the fundamentalists tend to confuse the two.
By: Steve on June 20, 2008
at 1:57 pm
Dear Brother,
I’m sorry to hear you’ve been shunned, but perhaps this is a mirror so you can look into your own soul and see where you need to improve.
Aargh! I hurts trying to sound fakey sappy.
Chris? Shunned. Hmm. Was it Beam or ole’ No. 7?
By: logiopath on June 20, 2008
at 3:37 pm
Chris, Consider yourself in good company. Martin Luther comes to mind off the top of my head. Reformation anyone? You know what they say, today’s heresy is tomorrow’s orthodoxy.
By: anita on June 20, 2008
at 3:55 pm
Yikes,
“The third reason for practicing Biblical separation is the desire for a “full reward” at the appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
They realize that their “reward” is based on “What they did with God’s Son” not how good they were. Oh wait, no they don’t.
I think there was a Biblical title for these “separatists”…Pharisees.
Sounds like you’ve been blessed by this separation
By: brent(inWorship) on June 20, 2008
at 4:47 pm
I’m kinda new here and I haven’t done my homework (still trying to keep my email and RSS feeds caught-up) but have you had ministerial or pastoral experience? ‘Cause, if I didn’t already have a deeply satisfying Faith, I’d attend your church in a flash!
~ Alex
By: amzolt on June 20, 2008
at 6:15 pm
As glib as this sounds. I haven’t missed those that have shunned me even a little bit. I thought I would, but it never happened. As a matter as fact I always ended up feeling like I had a weight lifted off my shoulders. One they tried to put on me. I guess what I’m saying is your better off without the people that shun you. You can focus on God while they all look past God top focus on your sin.
By: Mark on June 20, 2008
at 8:24 pm
Sorry, Chris. Not good…
By: Michelle on June 20, 2008
at 8:54 pm
To Chris:
As long as you are in the West, and as long as you are feeling down, do what we Westerners do–Drown your sorrows in a Double-Double from In-and-Out Burger–a rare treat for you Down-Easters.
By: logiopath on June 20, 2008
at 9:27 pm
Mmmmm… In-N-Out Mmmmm…
By: brent(inWorship) on June 20, 2008
at 10:08 pm
When Jesus wrote in the dirt His message may have been “Beware of Fundamentalists with rocks!”. Or at least something on that line. What ya think?
By: netprophet on June 20, 2008
at 11:22 pm
Checking in from Cameron Arizona, just got into our room and it has WiFi.
For the record, I’m not too terribly hurt (I have a genetic flaw – I can’t remember the last time someone other than my wife inflicted me with severe emotional wounds. She’s pretty good at it though.
) That being said, it is a little disappointing to have someone cut off all lines of communication because of differences of opinion, spiritual or otherwise. So yes, Logio, it will be Beam tonight (but it was to be Beam anyway).
Janice and Anita – I’m not surprised. Neither one of you rarely hold to the ’safe’ party line.
Amzolt – Glad you are hanging around. But please…you feed my greatest enemy with your kind words.
I like your website by the way. I took one dip and went in way over my head. But that won’t keep me away.
Steve – there apparently is plenty of Biblical justification for this point of view. Just check their websites. Just as their is Biblical justification for speaking in tongues, public confession, male only church leaders, tithing, anti-Semitism, etc etc. It does boil down to interpretation once again. But if this interpretation would contradict another basic biblical truth….
Mark – neither have I. There are some people who’s company I think I SHOULD miss and have considered revisiting but knowing that would be cringing inside discourages this.
Brent – it’s a burger. Not a double entendre. I’m gonna tell Tam if you keep this up. (Oops!)
Michelle – what? The ’shunning’ or the lapse into ’shundom’.
Net – I think that makes as much sense as any other speculation. Gosh, what if that kind of stuff- stoning, flogging, etc. was still acceptable. Ouch!)
You know if they had this kind of separation in place when Jesus was around then…hey, that’s right. They were called the Pharisees. Did Brent really say that?
Now, a cigar and a Red Hook ESB await me on the deck overlooking the (bone dry) Little Colorado. Adieu.
By: Christian on June 21, 2008
at 6:21 pm
Logiopath–> Amen! An In-N-Out Double-Double Protein Style Animal Style is second only to the Balm of Gilead in soothing what ills the troubled soul. I feel a witness coming on!
By: anita on June 21, 2008
at 6:27 pm
Huh?
I don’t understand the shutdown of communication. I’ve been “shunned” and it’s painful, but in time it gets easier to bear.
By: Michelle on June 21, 2008
at 7:16 pm
I am actually thinking of the burger here Chris. I miss the double double big time
And, yes, I did say that…surprised? The picture you painted is one that looks pretty “pharisee” to me. Of course each side will have it’s take (although I don’t even know the situation or the people involved, so I am just speaking to what you’ve written).
But that phrase, “The third reason for practicing Biblical separation is the desire for a “full reward” at the appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ.” really stood out to me. Whoever decides to take on that attitude is one that has completely forgotten what being a Christian is. It has nothing to do with our rewards and we most definitely cannot receive them through good works. “It is by grace we are saved” and everything that may come with that is by Hi grace as well. We have a chance to walk with lepers and hang out with drunkards, so that they can know the love of Jesus.
I am by no means a success at this, but I want to be. If a reward is involved, wonderful. But I don’t do it for my reward, I do it so that they can know Him. For His glory, not mine.
By: brent(inWorship) on June 21, 2008
at 9:43 pm
Brent, I agree. Good stuff. (And I wasn’t really ’surprised’ at your Pharisee reference. Just joshing.) But don’t you think that when you and I hang out with drunks and lepers, people who we otherwise would be afraid or distrusting of, we do receive some rewards? Not one that comes later in the next life, but rewards we can enjoy now.
As you suggested, we can take joy in knowing that we are serving God, but also we can be blessed by these people, learn from them and enjoy the company of those we might otherwise have written off. I think there is ample reward in just getting to know people, particularly those who seem to be much different than us. Of course, once you get to know them they are never that different.
By: Christian on June 21, 2008
at 9:59 pm
C, I agree. The first thing I think of when I hear “rewards” is what many Christians tend to focus on. Our “rewards in heaven”. Seems like it becomes the goal instead of the outcome or fruit. Just speaking to that mostly.
I completely agree that the rewards that are to be gained as we live out our faith are incredible. Every person is an opportunity. My wife has a post going right now of the best quote’s you’ve heard. A friend of mine left one of his own…
“Strangers are just people we don’t know who may very well be worthy of our time, our friendship, and our love should we ever have the courage to show them courtesy; within every smile and behind every frown there is a world of love reserved, or waiting, for someone special.”
I love that.
By: brent(inWorship) on June 21, 2008
at 10:15 pm
Awww….good ole shunning. Consider yourself blessed.
Nice post Christian.
By: Stephanie on June 23, 2008
at 11:24 am
“My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.” – Jesus
By: b4dguy on June 24, 2008
at 7:59 am
Preach it, Brother!
By: Christian on June 24, 2008
at 11:33 am
how does one go about loving a separatist when they want to be separated from those who are actually attempting a life in the way of jesus?
By: traviskeller on June 25, 2008
at 11:00 am
Well trav, that’s exactly what Jesus commanded us to do, isn’t it…?
By: BuddyO on June 25, 2008
at 11:54 am
Trav…I’m confused. I understand the definition of a separatist is somebody who breaks away from or who is in favor of breaking away from a religious group. That doesn’t necessarily mean that person is breaking away from his faith in God. Jesus was a true separatist when it came to the Pharisees, was He not? I would dare to compare the Fundamentalists of today with the Pharisees of Jesus’ time and not mean it as a slam. That is probably why I’m a little confused when you asked how are we to go about loving a separatist? It was hard for me to love a Fundamentalist until God reminded me that Jesus didn’t come to save Christians, (or Gentiles if you will), or Jews, or Mormons, or Catholics, or Hindu’s, or Buddhists, or even Pharisees. Jesus came to open the way for all humanity to find and enjoy the Grace of Salvation. God gave us the freedom to choose all of our ways and only He will be the judge if we will be accepted into His Kingdom.
Sorry about that, I really didn’t mean it that way. I just thought I might help you realize a way to love those that seem hard to love, or hard to reach.
Many believe wrongly when they think they have chosen to follow God. God chooses us! Therefore it should be easy to love everyone, knowing that one day they may very well be our brother or sister in Christ. We must endeavor to become a window through which people might see Jesus, not a remnant of the veil He tore with His sacrifice on the cross.
Man this is sounding like a sermon.
By: netprophet on June 25, 2008
at 9:23 pm
Thanks, Steph.
That little discussion between Trav, Buddy and Net reminded me that it is easy to confuse just who is separating from whom. For me, I feel that the act of separation is being played out by those that hold to Biblical separation. But for them, they may feel that it is I who has in some way, decided to remove myself from their idea of the church, by not readily conforming to (again, their take on) biblical doctrine and instead conforming to the world.
I think it is important to keep our hearts open for these folks, particularly as one may feel feel offended. Personal offense is not an emotion that we should entertain. I think that often is the root of this problem anyway.
By: Christian on June 26, 2008
at 1:21 am
Chris, I think the problem with Biblical doctrine is that it takes a back seat these days to Religious doctrine due to misinterpretation, mistranslation, and most of all miss america (I think you know what I mean by that last reference). This is evidenced by the success of the Evangelical Charlatans like Benny and the boys. Personally I don’t care one bit if these guys are personally offended by what I might say about them. However, I’m very concerned for their followers and pray for them daily. Maybe this is how the fundamentalists feel about us. And what they don’t understand is that I am not conforming to the secular world but rather trying to reform the world of Christianity by reintroducing them to the gospel of Christ that I feel has been undermined by the dogma of the Church.
Does this make me a radical rebel? A misguided despot? Or a religious crackpot? I’ve been called them all by my Christian brothers but I’m secure in the knowledge that Jesus knows who I am and will set me straight when I get to far off the track.
By: netprophet on June 26, 2008
at 3:39 am
“It’s happened again. Another self-avowed Christian fundamentalist has ’shunned’ me”
Gonna provide any back story?
By: totaltransformation on June 26, 2008
at 6:10 am
How in the world do you put Benny Hinn in an ‘Evangelical’ bucket?!?! Or, is that just how you classify everyone you dissagree with, sort of how a lot of people use the word Fundamentalist or Emergent?
If you’re going to classify people at least use the right labels, Hinn would fall into the “Word of Faith” category along with most of TBN.
By: BuddyO on June 26, 2008
at 8:14 am
Peace.
Thanks for your responses and continued dialogue.
I hope here to quickly add some qualification/clarification to the conversation.
All labels and categorizations are directly related to the immediate context. In one sense, Jesus could be a separatist (as in, from the Pharisees [and yes, netprophet, i would agree that many fundamentalists fall into this category in the appropriate context]). My comment was directly toward the idea of this blog’s author’s posted concept of “biblical separatism.” I do not contend that Jesus would be a “biblical separatist” as it was originally described here. My question is more focused on loving those with whom we disagree. It is a classic struggle to dismiss people that fall into certain categories simply because of disagreement and discontent with opposing language and methodology. What does it look like for an “emergent” to love a “fundie” or a “insert whatever label here” to love a “biblical separatist” (especially if the biblical separatist wants to be separate from someone who, contrary to the separatist opinion, is trying to enact love in the way of Jesus.
Peace.
By: traviskeller on June 26, 2008
at 9:05 am
Hey,Net. I hope you understood that what I meant was that “I” should not indulge in the selfishness of being personally offended by what others say and do. I am not terribly concerned if others are offended by what I say, as long as I am sensitive to their position and am not doing it in a mean spirited or malicious manner. This of course, is more easily accomplished if I can find it within myself to ‘love’ the one who has shunned me (I think this is what Travis is talking about). That being the case, I may find it difficult to ‘love’ folks like Benny Hinn if only because I believe they are screwing people and calling it the Gospel. Still….
We were talking about Hinn on an earlier thread here as well as over on http://www.Rev22.org so I guess he has been on some of our minds (although not really germane to this conversation). I certainly don’t think Hinn or the TBN crowd are honest Evangelicals (although that is how they have successfully portrayed themselves to the public and perhaps to many other more ‘authentic’ Evangelicals). They are however, as Net said, “Evangelical Charlatans”, and it is unfortunate that more church leaders do not point this out (like McArthur and Hanagraf have).
I agree with Buddy and Trav that labels do a disservice but when the people label themselves, what can you do? Fundamentalists (I eschew the term ‘fundies’ ) have actually (IMHO) mis-labeled themselves, as their ‘fundamentals’ are not really all too fundamental to the Gospel. They have been awarded the high ground in the same way that other successful propagandists have; by repeating an assertion so often that people come to just accept it as truth (solo fide, solo scripture, biblical innerancy and infallibility etc). To be fair, progressive Christians may do the same sort of thing by chanting mantras like “God is Love” without taking the time to examine what that really means.
My ‘concept’ of separatism is not what I described in this blog. This form of Biblical separatism is, again, the workings of those who claim to be adhering to fundamental biblical doctrine, but are actually (as Net said) promoting their own particular brand of religious doctrine. Are there legitimate cases for biblical separation? I doubt if the cases would be all that “black and white”. But some people who might be best left outside of the conversation could be people like Benny Hinn and Co. – those who obviously, repeatedly and unrepentantly take God’s name in vain (using God for their own personal gain at the expense of others). Which now makes the “Evangelical Charlatan” germane to this conversation after all.
By: Christian on June 26, 2008
at 10:28 am
Sorry to divert a bit here Chris…
Here’s wikipedia’s definition of the Evangelical movement. Granted they’re no final authority, but it seems to be pretty accurate. I just don’t get how you lump “Word of Faith” pastors into that group. It seems as if you either don’t really mean Evangelical in it’s true definition, perhaps some hijacked menaing of the word, or you don’t really understand what the Evangelical movement is.
At this point in my faith, I’m no defender of one movement over another. Actually, I really prefer not to use any particular labels. But if they are used, I’m a bit anal about having them used properly and not redefined on a whim.
By: BuddyO on June 26, 2008
at 10:43 am
Oops! Almost forgot my manners. Travis and Total – welcome aboard. And Mark – I think you’ve been here before (sorry if I am mistaken). Welcome back. Please keep coming back.
Total; backstory? Nothing too dramatic. I’ve just had some friendly (and what I believed to be were mutually thought provoking) relationships here on the internet cut off abruptly, all links deleted, when I did not heed their warnings and crossed over a certain theological line. Keep in mind that these were rarely heated discussion, generally polite and friendly. But I believe that I offended them for some beliefs that I shared. In this last particular case it was over my disagreement with the doctrine of hell.
In the case prior to that, (where we were discussing the doctrine of election) not only was I not allowed to respond to some assertions that the blog author was making about me but I was pointed out as an example of someone who’s ideas should be avoided at all costs. I think he said that I was a ‘fool leading other fools astray’. (I found this to be ironic, since the author’s premise seemed to suggest that in a predestined universe this was not possible.)
There have been more than a few others as well. I can see their point, although I completely disagree with it. By that same reasoning I should have ’shunned’ them. But learning of God and the universe is not a closed equation endeavor.
By: Christian on June 26, 2008
at 10:49 am
(I found this to be ironic, since the author’s premise seemed to suggest that in a predestined universe this was not possible.)
Now that’s a hoot…
By: BuddyO on June 26, 2008
at 10:55 am
Buddy – the link didn’t post http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism
I don’t lump them into the Evangelical camp (I thought I said that?) they consider themselves to be part of that camp, most likely erroneously. But have the self-proclaimed Evangelicals made the necessary distinction? Some have. But the lines seemed to be blurred. I know quite a few ‘evangelicals’ (you know some as well) who are fond of the fare on TBN. One friend once told me that, although Hinn may look a little suspect, he has seen many people ’saved’ at his crusades. Saved to what?
Personally, except for the recent example I gave on your blog, I never took the time to investigate Hinn and Co.’s theology. Multi-million dollar mansions, expansive ‘compounds’, Lear jets and limousines, crazy wacked out duds with ministerial logos etc etc tend to conflict with Jesus’ message.
By: Christian on June 26, 2008
at 11:14 am
“In the case prior to that, (where we were discussing the doctrine of election) not only was I not allowed to respond to some assertions that the blog author was making about me but I was pointed out as an example of someone who’s ideas should be avoided at all costs.”
You’re not alone. I was kicked out of one Yahoo! group for arguing about election, and out of another for daring to point out some not so kosher things about the Christmas holiday.
By: totaltransformation on June 26, 2008
at 11:19 am
Chris,
You make a good point that relates to my recent article. One I’m currently talking with Trav about. I DO beleive that people come to Hinns seminars and are ’saved’ (meaning they come to accept their need for Jesus in thier lives). From there, the Holy Spirit many take them on a crazy learing journey (not unlike the one you’ve been on). Whatever the launching point, even the angry fire and brimstone ‘fundie’ (as you like to call them) church, people can begin their journey anywhere. That doesn’t mean those people aren’t screwed up… but they can still be useful in the Kingdom and regardless, we are called to love them.
By: BuddyO on June 26, 2008
at 11:26 am
C’mon now. Buddy. Are you deliberately needling me here? I keep sayin’ that I never use the term ‘fundie’ but I keep gettin’ accused of it. Jeesh!
I firmly agree on your take. God certainly can use any one of us, including Benny Hinn, to further his will. He can also use the local bartender. The difference is that I don’t think the bartender is trying to deceive anyone. Nor do I believe that anyone deceived me when I came to accept Christ (but it has taken a few years for me to ‘deconstruct’ some of what I was taught). Fortunately I wasn’t burdened with all the crap that TBN dishes out.
Total, I picked up a few wounds from the Christmas Coalition myself (no, I don’t mean you Buddy
). Very sensitive issue and not really a part of anyone’s doctrine, as far as I can see. That topic can be just as incendiary as suggesting that the Founding Father’s were opposed to establishing a Christian nation. Quick, duck!
By: Christian on June 26, 2008
at 11:46 am
I wonder if any of those Bloggers ever read Mat. 5:22?
“But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’* is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.”
Raca: 1) empty, i.e. a senseless, empty headed man
2) a term of reproach used among the Jews in the time of Christ
By: netprophet on June 26, 2008
at 1:27 pm
Doesn’t apply, Chris doesn’t believe in hell…
By: BuddyO on June 26, 2008
at 1:32 pm
He believes the right things about Jesus. Does anything else really matter? Jesus didn’t seem to think so.
By: netprophet on June 26, 2008
at 2:39 pm
It does apply. They were the ones that called Chris a fool and that was my point.
By: netprophet on June 26, 2008
at 2:41 pm
Sorry net, I really need to be more serious… no fun allowed, I keep forgetting that.
Now that’s a statement that requires some ’splainin.
– The RIGHT things about Jesus… define right, and according to whom?
– Does anything else really matter?… uh yeah…
– So you’re saying that all Jesus cared about was that people believe the right things about himself… wow, I didn’t realize He was so egocentric…
By: BuddyO on June 26, 2008
at 2:52 pm
Oh, I believe in Hell alright. Auschwitz, the Gulag, Parchman Farm, the Bataan Death March, the Navajo Long Walk, the Rape of Nanking, the bombing of Dresden, Ruwanda, Darfur, Croatia,the corner of Fayette and Montford….hell is all around us. Don’t blame Hell on God.
By: Christian on June 26, 2008
at 2:53 pm
C’mon Buddy. You know what Net is saying. The ‘right’ things about Jesus are summed up in his Way of living. The Way is not just believing in God or that Jesus is God. It’s not about words of allegiance or fealty. It’s not about words at all. It’s taking the things he said about service, sacrifice, forgiveness, compassion and love seriously and demonstrating it by the way in which we live. No on can do this perfectly, but none of us should be satisfied with how well we do it. And this is according to what Jesus says and demonstrates in the Gospels.
We turn Jesus into an egomaniac when we insist that all he wants is for us to worship him as God. Even he tells us that many who call him lord he will not really know him. I personally believe that many who have never ‘heard’ of him know him much better than some of those who are called “Christians”.
Just curious, but what are those other things that matter?
By: Christian on June 26, 2008
at 3:13 pm
Gosh, there’s a lot. You alluded to one. Acting out your faith, not just believing. While you’ll get no argument from me that Jesus in centrally important and the climax of history, there is the other 80% of scripture that God felt important that reveals a larger picture of the nature and character of God; Jesus is only one factet. Those beautiful pictures in your latest post is certianly another important source of insight into the character and nature of God. etc, etc, etc, etc.
I’m not slamming netP, it just seemed a very small statement. I still didn’t get about ‘right according to whom?’. Are there wrong things about Jesus that we must avoid? and who is it that believes them?
By: BuddyO on June 26, 2008
at 3:49 pm
I think that there are ‘wrong’ things to believe, not just about Jesus, but about God as well. Things such as that;
God could ever endorse slavery, genocide or torturing people in order to invoke a proclamation of faith. That God rewards certain people with prosperity and health while punishing others with poverty and sickness. That God is on our side in any war. That it is OK for us feel contempt for certain people because of their beliefs (or lack there of). That God has endowed Man and not Woman to rule the earth. That all we need to know about God is found in the Bible. That God favors some races over others. That God loves Christians more than others and that anyone not a Christian will go to hell. You can find plenty of websites where any and all these things are believed.
The difference between those things that I just mentioned and those harsh realities of creation mentioned in my last post is that one is wholly of God (nature) and the others are representative of the actions and beliefs of men. Although there is much more than just the Gospels found in scripture, the Gospel message would seem to impact the above list directly. If anyone would choose to use any of the other 80% of the Bible to support a certain belief then I think they should first cross reference it with Christ’s message. When in doubt – go with what Jesus says on the subject.
By: Christian on June 26, 2008
at 4:03 pm
Thanks Chris! I couldn’t have said it better. Buddy it seems that you just like to argue for arguments sake. Jesus said that He was the life the truth and the way, and anyone who believes in Him will have eternal life. He and the Holy Spirit will work out the rest in us unworthy humans. You really don’t believe you can do anything right or wrong that will please God outside of your faith in Christ, do you? And who knows the character or nature of God except He who was sent by the Father? Jesus said “He who has seen Me has seen the Father.” There is no “larger picture”.
By: netprophet on June 26, 2008
at 4:06 pm
Agreed, but that’s not what the statement said. It said the ‘right things about Jesus’. Things about Jesus that are right. This implies ‘wrong things about Jesus’. Things about Jesus that are wrong. NOT peoples wrong interpretations about what Jesus said, that’s something different.
Again WHO defines what’s right about Jesus?
Anyway, none of this really matters, I’m just stirring things up to see what shakes out. No biggie.
By: BuddyO on June 26, 2008
at 4:08 pm
Sometimes…
Well… faith without works is dead isn’t it? And yes, I think there’s lots that pleases God. I think that when I sneak in the morning and give my daughter a kiss while she’s asleep, that pleases God, I think when I till my land and plant food and reap pesticide free food from the earth he provides, that pleases God, etc, etc.
I’m sorry to hear you say that. God is so much bigger than our puny little brains can comprehend. That’s why He finally had to come as Jesus, to give us something tangable that we could understand… kind of…
For a free thinking Emergent you really have a pretty rigid doctrine you adhere to.
By: BuddyO on June 26, 2008
at 4:18 pm
But if we are talking about the historical Jesus, the one we find in Scriptures and not the one we encounter personally and relationally, isn’t that all we have? Just interpretations? We’ve discussed this in the past – so much of what we have come to (or are told to) believe are the interpretations of religious leaders, both of today and of the past. So much of what is written in the Bible has been re-organized, collated, translated and re-translated and (shudder!) even edited that to the uninitiated it seems to be full of contradictions and inaccuracies.
But there is a common thread running through the Gospels (and all scripture, I believe) that illustrates the nature of God as displayed by Christ. Utter selflessness, surrender, sacrifice, forgiveness, mercy, weakness, brokeness and devotion to the Father. As Net remindeded us, if we see Jesus we see the father.
This is one reason why, for example, I (and others like Augustine and Luther
) do not take the Jesus we see in Revelations as the ‘real’ Jesus but as a literary tool of John’s. His actions don’t jibe with those he takes in the four Gospels. Doesn’t mean his work is not inspired, it just means we need to appreciate his use of poetic license.
By: Christian on June 26, 2008
at 4:22 pm
I agree that God can be pleased with our actions. When we put the axe down and embrace our brother rather than strike him, I gotta figure God is happy with that. But the idea that there is more for us than just Jesus – yes and no.
Yes, God is so much more than what our puny minds can imagine. And, all theological speculation about God creating the universe through Jesus aside, what does a sun blasted mesa in a barren desert wilderness have to do with Christ?
But as far as how we relate to God, how we should relate to each other and how we should (yes) relate to creation, in terms that our puny mind can understand – that is demonstrated to us by Christ. Even more so, if we are strong believers in atonement theology, that only Jesus’ sacrifice could redeem us, then the Gospel becomes even that more important to Christians.
Jews believe that the New Testament is an aberration, a heretical addition to Scriptures. They see no need for Yeshua in order for them to be in communion with God. Although we like to talk about interfaith relationships, there is no way a Jew can reconcile Jesus with his faith. In their eyes Jesus repudiates, not culminates, what has come before. This was enough for the people of the Way to splinter off and leave their Jewish roots behind.
We believe that Jesus is the culmination of what came before. It is only reasonable that. unless he is emphasizing a scriptural point, we must see his message taking precedence over all other messages found in scripture, or else finding a way to see them in harmony. Of course we should never forget that Jesus was a Jew and held scripture in high regard. It just needed a little clarification.
Very preachy. Sorry about that.
By: Christian on June 26, 2008
at 4:33 pm
Buddy… The only doctrine I rigidly adhere to is Jesus and Him crucified and risen. He is The Way. I adhere also to Paul’s statement that we are to work out our own salvation and that is what I am attempting to do. The Bible DIRECTS my path it doesn’t demand how I must walk even though some may think it does.
Buddy said: “That’s why He finally had to come as Jesus, to give us something tangable that we could understand… kind of…”
Are you saying that God gave us Himself but wanted the reason and purpose to be not fully understood? Does God play word games like you do? Would God send us the way and make it “kind of”? I think not! Jesus’ message is very clear and simple. Christian leaders with their attempted add-ons are what have made it complicated or confusing. This also is not a slam or intended to show malice. It is just the way I see it at this time in my Christian development.
By: netprophet on June 26, 2008
at 5:41 pm
The kind of was not referring to God but to the fact that people still don’t get Jesus message. We’re pretty dense. You’re absolutely right. Mankind has heaped huge amounts of baggage on a simple message for their own purpose and call it theology. That’s exactly the stuff I seek to deconstruct.
Not trying to pick a fight, just prompting thought… deconstruction if you will.
By: BuddyO on June 26, 2008
at 6:33 pm
Deconstruction. Exactly. You do know, don’t you, that this is considered quite the bad word by many modern traditionalists?
Which I don’t really understand. To deconstruct is to break something down to it’s basics – losing all that unnecessary, complicated and confusing baggage. Why would anyone object to this unless, as it threatens the status quo, it also threatens their safe and comfortable positions.
By: Christian on June 26, 2008
at 9:15 pm
It just what they do… no prob with me… let them do their do and I’ll do mine.
By: BuddyO on June 26, 2008
at 9:40 pm
I don’t know how you can write through the tears and agony you must be feeling at this moment! I never quite know what to think about Christians or churches that take on this fortress mentality in which they see the four walls of the sanctuary as a purifying force against the evil of the outside world (or even their own brothers.) Was Jesus simply wrong when he commanded us to engage the world for the sake of the lost? I certainly don’t think so.
By: Doulos Christou on June 27, 2008
at 8:18 am
Buddy- how far do you take that? I agree; “Live and let live” but what if they don’t share the same philosophy? In fact, that pretty much is not the fundamentalist philosophy, never has been, since the days of the Puritan. State sanctioned (Protestant) religions, forced school prayers, Christian icons in the public square, Sunday blue laws etc. etc. Some of these things may seem trivial to you or I but then we aren’t Jewish, Muslim or even Catholic (who lately have found themselves out of disfavor because of their anti-abortion stance). James Dobson and company do not speak for the majority of Christians and only lately have people like Jim Wallis begun to make that point clear.
Doulous – I wish I could say that I am that sensitive but (un?)fortunately I have been little fazed by these dismissals. If anything, my primary emotional response was some brief annoyance compounded with a tad of dismay. But I am certainly not wounded in any way. But your point is well made. It is exactly that – a fortress mentality that has been reinforced by years of Protestant defensiveness, which can be heard in many of the ‘great’ hymns and sermons of the past.
By: Christian on June 27, 2008
at 8:45 am
So what if they don’t share the same philosophy? All I can control is myself.
We were talking about my personal endeavor to deconstruct theology to grow my relationship with God so I can be more effective in the Kingdom. I don’t feel the need to force the results of this endeavor on anyone else, and praise God, I have the freedom to reject anything that is forced on my. I will (do) however look at all philosophies/interpretations/theologies that are presented to me because they all have at least something redeeming and worth looking at… even the ones you detest.
The examples you gave are not what we were talking about. That’s another conversation (one which we will probably disagree on). James Dobson speaks for James Dobson and Jim Wallis speaks for Jim Wallis. Anyone who thinks otherwise is mistaken; however, what other people perceive happens to be out of my realm of control.
By: BuddyO on June 27, 2008
at 9:28 am
If they let you do yours. This is the line that folks like Dobson et al use. “Although this was a Christian nation (patently untrue) Christians are being persecuted – removing creches and the Ten Commandments from public buildings, taking God out of the Pledge, of of our money, our monuments” etc. There is nothing wrong with objecting to this crusade and it is not somehow protected because it falls under the banner of ‘religion’. Objecting to how someone is trying to force their beliefs upon you or how some have used religion to take advantage of people is a worthy task. Certainly we don’t consider fundamental Mormonism or Islam to be exempt from criticism. Perhaps we should.
Sadly, we do not have the freedom to reject anything forced upon us – look how you are trying to get out of just filling out a mere census form: http://rev22.org/index.php/archives/141
There may come a time when Christians will be in the minority (just look at Europe) and we may wish that more people had taken an exception to ‘politically active’ religious fundamentalism. (I’m not talking about the Amish or the Mennonites here)
Of course Dobson and Wallis only speak for themselves. Evidence wold suggest that few people accept that and prefer to follow others rather than think for themselves. It’s been that way since the beginning. And that is why I think you have been publicly recognizing the dangers of religion, the organized church. But when you criticize this institution enough the institution will attempt to discredit or even silence you. Read Wallis or McLaren or Cavey – there is nothing heretical in their writings. But you won’t find their books in most evangelical bookstores, not because of their theology but because of their politics. And their books are no more political than Dobsons’ or Kennedy’s or a slew of other “Evangelcal” authors found on their shelves (many who will attack Willis, McLaren in their own writings). Which suggests that this argument is much broader than just being a matter of inter-religious laissez faire.
By: Christian on June 27, 2008
at 11:57 am
We’re talking about 2 different things. I’m talking about my faith and my relationship with God. There is nothing anyone can do to interfere with that. Sure I speak openly about my thoughts and ideas, but honestly I don’t really think anyone cares to listen (as evidenced by my blog stats) nor do I really care if they don’t. A couple of people do, both in agreement and dissent, and I always walk away better for it. I’m not out to start a religion, change the world, proselytize or evangelize (with words anyway). I’m just out to live my life the way Jesus did (as close as possible) and hopefully engage in the lives of others along the way hopefully for the benefit of both parties.
I have no fear of my church being affected. We meet in each other’s homes and have no intention of ‘institutionalizing’. Until we no longer have privacy in our homes (we’ll see what Obama has in store) I have no worries.
As far as voices like McLaren etal beig squashed… I’d have no problem if all Christian book stores went out of business… for a miriad of reasons. Where can you by McLaren, Wallis and Cavey now? Amazon and Barnes & Noble the way it should be.
By: BuddyO on June 27, 2008
at 1:19 pm
OK, understood and agreed.Although I think more people are interested in what you have to say than you allow for, but you are right to not care much about it. Personally (and this is where you have redirected this, to a personal level) I tend to avoid those people who are so ’sure’ about things that they assume every other rational person is in agreement with them and when you suggest otherwise they are either stunned or outraged.
You meet these folks at all levels and of all different persuasions; the liberals who all think GWB is a moron, the conservatives who think Hillary is just an amoral Machiavellian, those on both sides of the issues who assume that if you are for environmental protection you must be for gay marriage or if you are a gun enthusiast you must be for unlimited industrial growth. The worst offenders are in the media, and that is where most of our citizenry get the information to form their opinions, or more likely, adopt the opinions of others.
So I think that, although the blogosphere may be choked with meaningless babble, it is better to have the babble than allow the ‘powers that be’ continue to lead us by the hand. So the conversations, the rants, the diatribes are a good thing for our society. But you are right, it needn’t have any impact on how we encounter God.
In many respects these discussions are less about spirituality than they are about religion or maybe religiopolitics (which may be one and the same thing).
By: Christian on June 27, 2008
at 1:39 pm
Since we’re talking about this… I just got the following as a response to one of my comments at Floating Axe Head:
I’m sorry but I end up bursting out in laughter when I read stuff like this… folk in my office must think I’m nuts…
By: BuddyO on June 27, 2008
at 2:20 pm
The Holy Divine Justice Machine? Is that like the Superfriends and the League of Justice? Jeesh!
Foating Axe Head, eh.? Interesting – I think I remember that. Wasn’t that Elisha? (or the other Elisha?)
A better Latin slogan, I think, is “Vino et Veritas”. At least in my house, anyway.
By: Christian on June 27, 2008
at 4:44 pm
Hey, what’s the link? It didn’t post.
By: Christian on June 27, 2008
at 4:56 pm
http://floatingaxhead.com/2008/06/25/pastor-parking/
2 Kings
Your blog keeps filtering my links… you can’t be too safe….
By: BuddyO on June 27, 2008
at 5:54 pm