Posted by Helen on: 10.15.2007 /
The day after posting this review I heard Brian give a lecture closely related to the book: here are my detailed lecture notes
When I saw Brian’s book is a call to action to do more about global crises I thought, what’s not to like? Brian doesn’t need to persuade me that people with resources should be more responsible about how they use them and more generous about how they share them. (In general - I’m not saying no people with resources are careful or generous) I already knew that.
I think a lot of people already knew that; some profess to be Christians, some do not. Brian’s book is respectfully inclusive, inviting people who aren’t Christians to come along for the ride. But really it’s a book for Christians because a primary goal of it is to legitimize Brian’s call to action. Of course the way to do that among Christians is to demonstrate that this call to action was issued by Jesus. Or even better, that the good news Jesus announced was: respond to this call to action and you will make your world a better place.
This version of the good news makes a lot more sense to many people than some of the other versions I’m familar with. I think Brian has done something incredibly helpful for Christians who can’t help caring a lot about global crises. He’s given them permission to believe Jesus cares a lot about global crises too. Which makes everything line up way better in their lives. Now they can pursue what they are passionate about without feeling guilty that maybe Jesus doesn’t want them spending so much time on such things. Also they no longer have to suppress the deeper question: why doesn’t Jesus care about these things as much as I do?
Brian writes about his own journey in this regard and how his deeper questions were answered when he arrived at this understanding of Jesus’ message.
There are many specific things I like about the book. I appreciate Brian’s explanation about ‘framing stories’. I see this as a valuable contribution to the conversation because implicitly it explains that focusing on story is not just some postmodern word game. Rather, it’s an essential step in checking whether the point of what Jesus was saying has been understood or missed. Brian describes the framing story of the Roman Empire. It’s characterized by such things as enforcing peace through violence and extreme favoritism, in which a few benefit from the system but most lose out. Brian points out Jesus wanted to subvert this story, yet some of the framing stories Christianity has told about Jesus put him back in the middle of it - for example: favoring a few but most lose out. Brian goes into much more detail than that. I really liked this part of the book.
I also liked his discussion of war as an addiction. That made a lot of sense to me.
Later in the book Brian says some things about faith and belief which strike me as very radical. Essentially, he defines faith as believing [Jesus' words that] we can make the world a better place if we respond to the call to action. He calls this the faith that will save us - in a global sense. He talks about transferring trust from the way of Caesar to the way of Jesus. He uses quintessentially conservative evangelical language in a radically different way. Is he replacing conservative evangelical definitions or simply paralleling them from a global perspective? He doesn’t really say. If he’s replacing them I expect Christians at the conservative end of the spectrum are going to have a huge problem with that.
When I got to the end I found myself thinking something I’m not sure Brian intended (but perhaps he did): this story can be told without Jesus or even God having a central role. It’s simply a story about how if we can believe we can make a difference, we (very likely) can make our world a better place. Lots of people have found a way to believe it’s worth trying who don’t believe in Jesus. I don’t have a problem with people seeing the call to action Brian describes as Jesus’ call to action. I think Brian gives reasonable evidence of that (assuming the Bible is a reliable record of Jesus life and words). But ultimately I think Jesus doesn’t need to be part of this story.
I don’t have a problem with the idea that God could have written a story in which he doesn’t have to be the main character and get all the attention. (In fact, to me, that seems very consistent with Jesus saying he came to serve, not to be served). However, I think a lot of Christians will be rather outraged (i.e. righteously indignant) if they notice this ramification of Brian’s version of the “good news” of Jesus. (Because everything is supposed to be about God’s glory). And in their outrage they will miss the enormous benefit of this story being one that can be told without God, which is: it’s inclusive; it’s one that makes sense to all socially aware people; it’s one that simply says “if you see the problem, let’s work together and do our best to fix it.”. It places no belief litmus test barriers in the way of those who care.
Brian is a follower of Jesus so there’s no need or reason for him to take Jesus out of his own framing story. Here’s a description of Jesus Brian gives in the book which I really like:
He simply let the people know he liked them - and so did God, that he was interested in them, that they didn’t have to be ashamed of who they were. He came close to them in their illnesses, wept with them at the graves of their loved ones, ate at their tables, drank their wine, listened to their words, let himself be injured by their pain - and, although it isn’t recorded in any of the Gospels (canonical or otherwise), I imagine he laughed at some of their jokes too.
In summary, I’m very glad Brian wrote this book. I think it’s an important contribution to the conversation about what following Jesus could and should look like. More importantly, I think it’s likely that many people will take his call to action seriously and that will result in some increase in what people are doing to make the world a better place. Which would be wonderful.
Comment by: Fernando's Desk » Permission To Be Christian?
1 10/15/07 6:15 PM | Comment Link |[...] Hope has generated a lot of blog-traffic. Some reviews are really thoughtful and well-written, but Helen’s thoughts at Conversation at the Edge have most inspired me to pick up the book and read it for myself. “I think Brian has done [...]
Comment by: glenn
2Helen- I can’t wait to read it. I started last night after Brian’s lecture.
Comment by: Helen
3Hi Glenn, I’ll be interested to hear what you think of the book. It’s pretty much like the lecture last night, but much more detailed. I really enjoyed meeting you in person last night!
Comment by: Mjoshua
4I agree in many ways.
Your review of the book is far more professional than mine. You wrote exactly what the book was really about.
I wondered how revolutionary this whole book was after I read it, because I already had very similar sentiments. Then I went on a roadtrip this weekend and realized how few Christians get these things and ignorantly feed the Suicide Machine.
I really liked the emphasis on the changing of the Framing Story.
Comment by: Helen
5Thanks Mjoshua! I loved the emphasis on changing the Framing Story too.
I think there will be many people like you who find the book echoes their own sentiments. However, in some Christian circles Brian’s book will be regarded as an unacceptable departure from orthodox Christian faith. Here’s an example of a review saying Brian is starting a whole new religion which isn’t Christianity As more people read the book I expect many more reviews along these lines will be posted.
Comment by: Doreen A Mannion
6Thanks for the review, Helen. BTW, Jesus laughs in the “Gospel of Judas.”
Comment by: Notes from Everything Must Change Lecture « j. blake huggins
7 10/19/07 9:13 AM | Comment Link |[...] I’m on the subject check out Helen’s review of the book. Good [...]
Comment by: Justice and Compassion
8 10/21/07 5:15 PM | Comment Link |[...] Visit Conversation at the Edge for Helen Mildenhall’s review of Everything Must Change [...]
Comment by: Rachel
9I agree, Helen. It seems sad that Christianity in the US is in such a state that we even NEED to prove that. But I am encouraged by some recent changes taking place in the Christian community. It’s great to see leaders like Rick & Kay Warren addressing issues like HIV/AIDS and poverty and the National Association of Evangelicals speaking out on climate change. I think more US Christians are embracing a holistic gospel and Brian’s book is a great contribution to that conversation.
I really enjoyed that part too. I learned so much from his explanation of the different framing stories of Jesus’ day - Pharisee, Essene, Imperial, Zealot and Herodian/Sadducee - and how Jesus’ life and teaching challenged each of those stories. I was also struck by how with each of those categories, I could easily draw a parallel to a group or attitude that is prevalent today.
I thought Brian was pretty clear that he was not replacing the definitions but expanding them. He referred to a faith “that offers good news for both the living and the dying, that speaks of God’s grace at work both in this life and the life to come, that speaks both to individuals and to societies and to the planet as whole”.
I don’t think that Brian is rejecting the ideas of personal sin and salvation and eternal life with God. But he is saying that societal sin and global redemption and reconciliation in this life are ALSO part of the gospel. He wants to expand what he sees as a shrunken gospel back to its full dimensions, not replace one limited version of the gospel with another.
But I think you are right, Helen. Some conservative evangelicals, especially the Calvinists, will be very threatened by what he has to say and they have already been attacking him fiercely. Brian was even called “a true son of Lucifer” by one of his critics!
Of course I don’t agree with you on that, Helen. But the uniqueness and power of Jesus is part of my belief system. And we certainly don’t need to have the same beliefs to work together to MTWABP. :-)
I totally agree!
Comment by: Helen
10Thanks for your comments, Rachel!
I struggled with how to word that section - I think you did it better than me with “we certainly don’t need to have the same beliefs to work together to MTWABP”. This is what I was attempting to get to…I was trying to say that Brian helps people see what you said by identifying a call to action that people who don’t have Jesus as part of their story can care about as much as people who do.
In other words, Brian sets things up in a way that makes it easy for people to connect with his call to action whether they do or don’t have Jesus as part of their story.
Which will upset some people who think there is no commonality between people who do and don’t have stories focused around Jesus.
But other people will be pleased because it shows that different beliefs about who Jesus is need not get in the way of us working together to MTWAPB.
I hope that clarifies what I meant a bit. What I actually wrote sounds a bit like I’m declaring Jesus is now redundant but I didn’t mean to say that. I was in that situation of “I’m not sure this is coming out quite right but I can’t spend any more time on this review”
Comment by: andrew jones
11yeah, helen. i resonate with what you have written here. thanks.
Comment by: Helen
12Thanks Andrew!
Comment by: Steve S.
13It is this exact mentality that also lines up with some of the very attitudes Jesus had to confront in his day, as was said…
It is funny, I actually posted something about this just recently, after spending several months reading many of NT Wright’s essays and books. I have seen his influence time and again on McLaren…
Comment by: Helen
14Thanks for that link, Steve. So you put yourself in your #3 category, this one:
Wow…I wonder if you and I hear something rather different when we read those words. Because - how can I put this…to me you seem…nicer than this person. He/she strikes me as impatient and having a holier-than-thou attitude; someone without much love for people.
Regarding NT Wright and Brian McLaren - I was an early adopter of NT Wright before he was trendy. I saw his name on the bibliography of a conservative Christian I respected and started reading his books in 1997. Since then both NT Wright and Brian McLaren have gained a big following. I would say NT Wright is much more conservative than Brian McLaren. It didn’t leap out at me that NT has influenced Brian but that makes sense given that NT has influenced just about everyone who is asking questions about what Jesus really meant, who assumes the New Testament reliably records the events and significance of Jesus’ life.
Comment by: Steve S.
15Hey Helen,
This is not who I want to be, but it is unfortunately who I sometimes am. Understand that I say that with a sad heart…
…but there is more to the story!
I had to pick one of the four, partly to encourage others to find themselves in one of the four options available (none of which are completely appealing, for various reasons). There is a second post that should help illuminate for you where I was coming from with all of that.
Read this
I also have to say that, my ‘holier-than-thou’ hat usually comes on around other Christians (usually the really conservative, really churchy types) and almost never around anyone else…
I am also suprised to hear you label Wright a conservative, he certainly does seem to receive a lot of criticism from the conservatives…
Of course, he does believe that the ‘New Testament reliably records the events and significance of Jesus’ life.’ But I would hesitate to paint everyone who affirmed that view of history as a conservative…
Comment by: Helen
16Steve wrote:
Ok, that makes sense to me. I couldn’t tell from your post whether you were pleased about being this way or not…
Would you say that justifies it, or not?
This might seem odd in view of his recent association with emerging church theology.
However if you look at his history it makes more sense: going back a few years, one of his emphases was defending the reliability of the gospels against members of the Jesus Seminar. In that role he was the conservative, they were the liberals.
Yes, I definitely would say he’s a conservative. I don’t think of him as very radical at all. I would say anyone who believes Jesus is Lord and Savior (and God) and literally rose from the dead is a conservative.
Have you seen conservatives say he isn’t a conservative? I know his theology is criticized by some other conservatives but do they say he’s not a conservative or do they label him as a conservative with some dangerously errant ideas?
Comment by: Rachel
17I wouldn’t label NT Wright a conservative - an evangelical, but not a conservative.
Brian McLaren, Jim Wallis, and Tony Campolo all believe this. And nobody’s gonna call them conservatives. ;-)
Comment by: Helen
18Hmmmm…they’re conservative compared to the Jesus Seminar which I suppose is where my frame of reference came from.
I understand what you’re saying. Steve maybe my view that NT Wright is a conservative is not a majority view.
Comment by: Steve S.
19The Jesus Seminar is not so much liberal IMO, as it is a non-historical approach to Jesus. I don’t know of any other historical question that historians would allow to be answered in the way the Jesus Seminar has proposed to answer the question of Jesus.
I don’t think Wright’s critique of the Jesus Seminar is about conservative-liberal conclusions so much as what constitutes appropriate history methodology.
In Wright’s attack of the Seminar, he seems to be attacking their methods primarliy, and their conclusions secondarily.
I think conservatives would reject that as a definition, and the only Christians I know who self-identify as conservative and also are familiar with Wright, would definately say he is something else…
Nope. It is easier to see the flaws in your own parents, that doesn’t make it okay to expose them publicly. I’m working on it Helen, cut me some slack ;-)
Comment by: Helen
20Steve wrote:
Interesting…I don’t agree with you; I think the Jesus Seminar approach is a historical approach. However it’s a historical approach which assumes the gospel accounts in the Bible aren’t strict records of historical events. The Jesus Seminar starts with them and derives their view on what actually happened from a historical point of view.
I think there are plenty of ancient stories we treat this way. I’ve never heard anyone argue that every creature Ulysses claimed to have met was real.
Many Christians have a belief that the gospels record historical events, which means they come up with a different version of history to the Jesus Seminar.
I was initially skeptical about the Jesus Seminar until I realized that they take Jesus very seriously and likewise, they take the parts of the gospels they regard as authentically said by Jesus very seriously. And I liked what they said about them more than some of the things Christians who believe all the gospel content describes historical events said. And to me, the Jesus Seminar thinking things which don’t match other things in there were added later is no worse than the way other Christians handle what I see as mismatches (i.e. arbitrarily - so it seems to me - deciding which parts ‘count’ and need explaining away)
Ok, fair enough.
I suppose I need to incorporate the complexity of ways people approach the Bible into my definitions. As you and Rachel point out, someone can be considered quite radical/heretical by some Christians yet believe the Bible is basically historically accurate and true.
If I sounded accusatory I didn’t mean it that way. I was curious as to your position; some people do intentionally operate from a “I’ll treat you no better than you treat others” paradigm and feel justified being intolerant of intolerant people and judgmental towards judgmental people, for example.
I understand that but it’s not a grace-based paradigm; I try to show grace when possible, since I like to be at the receiving end of it.
Comment by: Steve S.
21Helen, you don’t have to worry about hurting my feeling…
I’ll spell it out if you do…
As to the Seminar, the problem as I see it, really doesn’t have to do with their conclusions per se…
It has to do with methods, the voting in and of itself is problematic, and then the manner in which they publish the vote skews the results in many ways. Add to the fact that their assumptions about the cannonical gospels really doesn’t give the possibility of their accuracy a reasonable chance…
…a historical inquiry, by definition, cannot start with an assumed understanding of the facts, that is supposed to be the end of the inquiry.
Comment by: Helen
22Hi Steve, I’m glad I didn’t offend you and that I can assume you’ll let me know if I do!
Steve wrote:
I agree; but it seems to me that Christians who believe the whole Bible is historically accurate do the same thing. They start with a different assumption: it’s all historically accurate; but they still start with an assumption (aka faith position/belief).
I don’t disagree with what you said about the Jesus Seminar but I do have a problem with Christians who talk as if the Jesus Seminar members do this and they don’t.
Comment by: Steve S.
23The ‘pot calling the kettle black’ is always annoying, but there are some fundamental differences between people who acknowledge their biases on the front end, and people who hide behind the claim to objectivity. Academics often need to get over their own overblown ego…
I had the same thing happen while listening to one of my regular radio programs. “We are objective, listen to us! The other guys are biased, blah, blah, blah…”
I would rather we just exposed ourselves and had a frank discussion…
Comment by: Helen
24Steve S. wrote:
And pastors don’t? :-)
In my experience pastors aren’t great at acknowledging their biases up front either. Unless “I’m biased towards the truth” counts!
Exactly.
Comment by: Progression of Faith
25Great review! I like the conversation and I really appreciate your logic.
Comment by: Helen
26Thanks, Progression of Faith!
Comment by: Steve S.
27Helen::
Pastors are actually a special sub-branch of ‘academics;’ we are actually double-blinded by the fact that we are aware of hubris in others,, and even see it in ourselves in some small areas…
There is a reason why Jesus only had hard words for the ‘pastors’ and ‘worship leaders’ of his day.
Comment by: Helen
28Steve I’m glad you also think those words of Jesus were to ‘insiders’. Most Christians I’ve said that to disagree and say those words were to outsiders.
Comment by: Mike Clawson
29One of the things I’ve appreciated about Wright is that he seems to be one of the few scholars and few “evangelicals” who doesn’t seem to start with his assumptions about the historicity of the texts even though that’s generally where he ends up. He seems to honestly weigh the evidence for an against for each particular text (because of course you have to talk about specific books, not the NT or the Bible as a whole) and decides only after careful scholarly consideration. There’s no hint of “you must accept the historicity of the text or else be condemned as a heretic” in his approach, which is why I think he gets along so well even with those Jesus Seminar scholars with whom he disagrees.
I also think your conversation about whether Wright is conservative or liberal is a good example of why the emerging church movement (for which Wright is a major influence) is so hard to pin down. We don’t fit well into any of the old categories.
Comment by: Helen
30Mike wrote:
I think it’s also because he values friendship with them - so he makes an effort to stay civil and friendly and to keep his sense of humor.
Good point!
Comment by: donsands
31McLaren’s definition is misleading.
Surely Jesus was kind, He was kinder and more loving than anyone who ever lived, for He was God, and God is love. But God is holy, and God has an anger against people who willfully and rebelliously blaspheme His name and truth, which is the Gospel.
(Brian said, “He simply let the people know he liked them - and so did God, that he was interested in them, that they didn’t have to be ashamed of who they were. He came close to them in their illnesses, wept with them at the graves of their loved ones, ate at their tables, drank their wine, listened to their words, let himself be injured by their pain - and, although it isn’t recorded in any of the Gospels (canonical or otherwise), I imagine he laughed at some of their jokes too.”)
This is a Jesus made in Brian’s own image.
How about this truth: Jesus said, “If anyone causes one of these little ones to be offended, then it would be better for them to have a rope tied around their neck, and then tied to a milestone, and thrown in the sea!” That’s not a very nice statement. It’s from a Man who is angry, and One who will judge evil.
Also Jesus whipped people and animals out of the Temple. He was incredibly angry, and was very violent with these people. And He actually did this twice. But the second time He didn’t use a whip.
Can you imagine Jesus whipping people, and grabbing their money and throwing it in His anger, and even wrath. And then taking their tables, which they had their merchandise set upon, and totally, and destructively, tearing these things apart?
That’s the true Jesus. And you need to see Him for who He is, according to the whole of Scripture. Surely He is kind and gentle, but don’t forget He is a holy Lamb of God with a wrath.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
32You failed to bother quoting Jesus where he did support Brians views (another example of selective bible reading) Had you done that your argument while not convincing would have at least been more
entertaining.
Also- since it is evident that you see yourself as an expert on the bible tell us exactly WHO Jesus threw out of the temple and threatened to drown.
Here’s a clue - people who thought God was mad at everybody
Comment by: Rachel
33Don, it is my understanding that in the original Greek it is clear that the whip was only used on animals, not people. And all he needed to do was give the animals a good enough slap to start a stampede out of the temple, not beat them enough to cause harm.
Comment by: Helen
34donsands wrote:
If so then Brian is a very kind person, which does seem to be the case and which I would say is much to his credit. If there were more people like that around the world would be a better place. Which I can’t believe is against God’s wishes [if God exists].
Don this ‘holy’ Jesus you’re talking about isn’t in the gospels. ‘Holy’ means ‘other’ but the whole point of the incarnation is that Jesus was fully human. He was not an alien walking around saying “Ewwww…these humans are nasty earth creatures”. If we put “Jesus is holy” in plain English we see it means “Jesus is an alien“: that shows what a strange statement it is! We need to do that more with theological statements (translate them into plain English) to see whether they actually make sense.
Your doctrine (I’m guessing a bit but I assume you believe original sin infects all mankind (except Jesus)) makes Jesus angry at humans for being human. This is not at all what the gospels say. I suggest you read them carefully and find out what Jesus was actually angry about and who he was angry with. That might be an uncomfortable experience because it might mess up your theology. (It totally messed up mine to read what Jesus actually said about hell) However, God never said theology was supposed to neat and tidy. That was an idea humans came up with - and now, seemingly, many of them worship their neat and tidy systematic theology rather than dealing with what the Bible actually says about Jesus the human being.
Comment by: Quick Thoughts from the Web « Life Under the Blue Sky: The View From Below
35 11/7/07 7:23 AM | Comment Link |[...] theological liberalism trying to stay relevant in a church where it has been rendered irrelevant? I read this by another reviewer: I think a lot of people already knew that; some profess to be Christians, some do not. Brian’s [...]
Comment by: donsands
36Jim,
All Scripture is needed to grow in the knowledge of Jesus Christ. This is what I was trying to explain. Brian McLaren is the one who takes the Scriptures he likes, and makes a God he likes.
I need to learn a lot, but by God’s grace I am able to see that the whole of God’s Word is what we need to hear. Not just portions.
If you reread my comment you’ll see that.
Rachel,
I don’t believe that to be true. Though even if Jesus didn’t whip the people out, he turned over their tables, and threw their money out.
Jesus was mad. there’s no way around it, and though He is loving and merciful, He is a Holy Lord of the universe, who has a wrath, and He will one day judge all who reject His Word.
Read the bible for yourself, don’t listen to Mclaren, or anyone else for that matter.
Ask the Lord to have mercy and show you the truth, and he will.
We all have a tendency to bring our notions to Scriptures and we make it say what we want it to. That’s what Brian McLaren does.
Jesus said there would be false teachers, who will be subtle and deceptive, and will come and if possible would even deceive God’s elect.
Take heed, there are thousands of false Christians out there.
Many will come on that Day and say “Lord, Lord”. This is an intimate way of speaking. This scares me every time I read it.
How can we know if we have eternal life? That’s the question.
Not how nice I am. Many pagans are very nice people, but do not trust in Christ, and so shall be judged for their sins. The way to heaven, and the presence of God, is to have your sins forgiven, all of them, and this can only happen through the Cross of Christ; His death; His precious broken body, and His precious blood, which cleanses us from all sin. Praise His holy name forever and ever. Amen.
Comment by: Helen
37Any religion which isn’t about how nice people are is an inhuman thing. Jesus was human so it makes no sense to me to claim he was the founder of something so inhuman it has nothing to do with ‘nice’.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
38Don
We all do that including you. It would help the dialog if you could simply admit that you are doing the same thing you accuse Brian of doing
Without that there is no conversation just a debate
Comment by: donsands
39Jim,
Brian says that the whole homosexual behavior thing is something that is too deep to understand, and we need to revisit it in 5-10 years from now.
He doesn’t like that this is a sin of fornication, and that God condemns it, so he doesn’t deal with it.
The whole of Scripture is something i want to deal with, but not Brian, and that’s the truth.
Am I biased? Oh, for sure. There’s no escaping this.
Do I adhere to the full Holy Writ as the final, and all sufficient, authority of God to us His people? Yes.
I wish we all, those who love God and Christ, would see the Scriptures as the treasure of all treasures to us, only God Himself being above His precious Word.
If the people of God do embrace His Word once again, then we will see fruit for His glory in greater ways than we could ever have imagined.
Blessing to you.
Comment by: Helen
40Brian’s message is: if the people of God would actually do what Jesus said, we would see the world changed in greater [positive] ways than we ever could have imagined.
Comment by: donsands
41Amen. We need to be preaching the Gospel to all people, and telling them to repent of their sin, and trust in the Cross of Christ. And we need to glorify Christ Jesus and His Father, for there is no other name by which man can be saved.
I wish Brian would preach this. I’ve never heard him. It’s the simple truth and grace of the Word of God.
Jesus said if we are ashame of Him, then He will be ashamed of us.
Jesus said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY Word that proceeds from the mouth of God.”
We need to read, study, and meditate on the complete Word of God, and then be doers of this word.
Comment by: Rachel
42Don, can you please list for us which of Brian’s books you have read?
Comment by: donsands
43Generous Orthodoxy, which was incredibly difficult to read. And I have read his articles in various magazines, such as Christianity Today, and Leadership.
Everytime I read something he wrote, and shares his view, I think I’m reading a heretic’s thoughts. But I also have a good friend, who is a friend of Brian, and he helps me not go that far with my thinking, and let God judge him. Though I do believe he could be a false teacher within the Church.
An excellent book I read critquing McLaren’s philosophy is a book by DA Carson, “Becoming Conversant With the Emerging Church”.
I highly recommend it.
DA Carson is a highly respected leader in the Body of Christ, and he really did his homework, and gives a very balanced view of the EC and in particular Brian McLaren.
Comment by: Helen
44Don have you read Scot McKnight’s article about the EC? Five Streams of the Emerging Church
I think it’s probably more balanced than Don Carson’s although you might prefer Don Carson’s.
Comment by: donsands
45Carson’s book is tremendous, and it’s because he loves the Lord, and he is thorough in his warning the Body of Christ, as he speaks, and writes, the truth in love.
I’m unfamiliar with Scot McKnight, but I shall check him out.
I’m becoming more and more familair with this sub-culture within, (and that can be bad, or good within), the Body of Christ.
It’s more than Calvinism vs. Arminianism. It’s more than man-cenetered hearts vs. Christ-centered hearts.
It’s all of that, but here’s the bottom line.
Where are you with the Scriptures? Do you love the Bible? If you are born again, and have the Spirit of truth, which is the Spirit of Christ in your heart, than there’s no doubt you will love the Wprd of God. It may cut to the soul, and convict, and be painful at times, but there is a joy that accompanies this pain. And there will be times, and this will be for the overwhelming most part, when the Word will fill our hearts with His joy and peace, because it’s His grace and love that are treasures to us, and these cause us to hate sin, especially sin that nailed our Savior to the Cross, our sin, and we will love godliness and righteousness.
And the whole time we live here on earth we will struggle with our flesh, the devil, and this world which hates Christ and His truth.
May the Lord bring His truth to bear upon your hearts and minds in a great and glorifying way. Amen.
Comment by: David H
46And God has never spoken except what is recorded in the Bible?
Oops, of course he did. Because at the time Jesus said this his words were not recorded in the Bible. It wasn’t until about 100 years after Jesus died that someone wrote down his words and about 200 years after that the a group of men chose which of the words were said to come from Jesus were acceptable enough (to them) to be considered words from God.
Perhaps we can agree that Jesus said all of scripture (that is the words from God that had been written down at the time he was alive, or perhaps he was even speaking in the future tense) can be contained in two commandments: Love God above all things and love your neighbor as yourself.
Maybe the gospel is less something you speak and more something you do. I know lots of gospel speakers who are really into the whole judgment thing. They are salivating like someone waiting for a good meal to see God’s wrath rain down on everyone who disagrees with them. Some of them impress me as practically sociopathic on the subject.
Maybe Jeus was mad. Maybe he is really an angry uber-guy coming to lay a cosmic beat down on everyone who hasn’t done what he wants. But that isn’t what he told his followers to do or be.
“A new commandment I give to you,” are words that appear in red in my NIV Ryrie study Bible. “Love one another.”
May the Lord bring His truth to bear upon your heart and mind in a great and glorifying way Don Sands. May it make you love yourself and your neighbor; may it fill your heart with a desire for peace even if that requires you to tone down your self-righteousness.
Here is what I love: God, Jesus, others, myself (as best as I am able on all). Jesus didn’t mention loving the Bible when he summed up the scriptures, so I’m going to leave that one off my list.
Comment by: Notes from Everything Must Change Lecture : blakehuggins.com
47 11/30/07 9:21 AM | Comment Link |[...] I’m on the subject check out Helen’s review of the book. Good [...]