“BUT WE HAVE SO MUCH IN COMMON….”
[ Page 1 ] - [ Page 2 ] |
1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come.The highlighted phrase contains the essence of the problem with “Passive Endorsement”. Paul knew that it was vital to preserve the spiritual purity of the Thessalonian Church. Therefore he officially denounced the damaging doctrine and would not allow a false teacher to defraud the Church by claiming Paul’s direct authorship of it, nor his approval of the same. In fact, there is an entire body of non-Biblical literature known as the Pseudepigrapha. This was a collection writings, all produced under the assumed names of the Apostles and other notable figures. The unscrupulous authors hoped that their deception would gain them a hearing due to the fame of the assumed name placed upon it. That is, once again, why we read Paul’s strongly worded warning to the Thessalonians with regards to a false doctrine being attributed to him. Today, Apostolic plagiarism is not so much a threat, but misplaced credibility due to the careless endorsements by trusted figures has never been stronger. The question I want to address in this article is when we will finally stand up and debate many of these positions of famous churchmen, and even by willing to restrict his or her access to our pulpits, because they hold doctrinal positions that are not damnable per se; but are very detrimental to orthodox belief and practice.
“16 Now it happened, as we went to prayer, that a certain slave girl possessed with a spirit of divination met us, who brought her masters much profit by fortune-telling. 17 This girl followed Paul and us, and cried out, saying, "These men are the servants of the Most- High God, who proclaim to us the way of salvation."We are confronted here with the crux of the entire question facing today’s Christians and their leaders. How should Paul react to this encounter? Should he make the most of this “connection” with a member of the local community? Should he capitalize on this opportunity to create consensus and build bridges of mutual toleration, diversity, and understanding? After all, the fortune teller’s statements were accurate and could benefit Paul’s cause by attracting “seekers” that could attend his lectures and come to some sort of belief in Jesus. As one reads the record of ministry contained in the Book of Acts, it becomes quickly evident that conflict and persecution always followed the preaching of the true Gospel. The abandonment of Christ’s exclusive claims in favor of universal brotherhood and visible unity is the foundational error from which all the modern “heresies of relevance” spring! The Holy Spirit, speaking through Paul in Romans 1:16 states, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.” In Acts 4:12 Peter proclaims: "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." These inspired words have given believers of all ages a clear understanding that our Gospel (to all ages and cultures) is one of submission to Christ Jesus as the one and only Savior of the human race.
18 And this she did for many days. But Paul, greatly annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, "I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her." And he came out that very hour. 19 But when her masters saw that their hope of profit was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace to the authorities. 20 And they brought them to the magistrates, and said, "These men, being Jews, exceedingly trouble our city; 21 "and they teach customs which are not lawful for us, being Romans, to receive or observe." 22 Then the multitude rose up together against them; and the magistrates tore off their clothes and commanded them to be beaten with rods. 23 And when they had laid many stripes on them, they threw them into prison, commanding the jailer to keep them securely.”Paul was “greatly annoyed” at the fact that a woman who was locally famous for her occult powers of divination had also given an endorsement to the Gospel of Christ and His messengers. Please allow me to restate that for many modern (and post-modern) leaders, any endorsement is considered a good one, and they are more than happy to share their platforms with other gods who flatter the Lord Jesus as a teacher, revolutionary leader, moralist, etc. To the first-century Christians however, this “flattery” was an insult and considered intolerable! The confrontation that followed in Philippi led to the deliverance of the dear woman from demonic oppression, but also led to a violent backlash against those narrow-minded bigots who demanded absolute devotion to their “god”, Jesus Christ!
“In an age of global terrorism and rising religious conflict, it is significant to note that all Muslims regard Jesus as a great prophet, that many Hindus are willing to consider Jesus as a legitimate manifestation of the divine... many Buddhists see Jesus as one of humanity’s most enlightened people, and that Jesus himself was a Jew, and (this book asserts) without understanding his Jewishness, one doesn’t understand Jesus. A shared reappraisal of Jesus’ message could provide a unique space or common ground for urgently needed religious dialogue—and it doesn’t seem an exaggeration to say that the future of our planet may depend on such dialogue." (The Secret Message of Jesus. W Publishing Group, 2000. p.7)In an interview with Leif Hansen, the transcript of which is available at UnderstandTheTimes.org, McClaren makes some other rather provocative statements that should give the serious Christian pause:
Hansen: They (traditional Christians) want to know that there’s going to be some kind of, so to speak, hell to pay. Some sort of judgment. I think part of the problem that you and I both react to is that an infinite amount of punishment for a finite being and a finite amount of sin, there’s something that seems to question God’s just and loving nature.
McLaren: Yeah, it’s very true. And I think that creates a rational problem. And is that rationally sensible? Would it be—Does it make sense for a good being to create creatures who will experience infinite torture, infinite time, infinite—you know, never be numbed in their consciousness? I mean, how would you even create a universe where that sort of thing could happen? It just sounds—It really raises some questions about the goodness of God. And that, to me, is the deepest issue. You know, John said in First John, God is light and in God there is no darkness at all. And I what I have to believe is that very few of us actually believe that. We all have the suspicion that there is a dark side to God. And that God isn’t truly, truly good. And I’m sure there’s all kinds of psycho pathology in that and everything else for all of us. But I think this is, in large part, why, what is so wonderful and magnetic about Jesus, is that Jesus, I think, reveals to us a God who is all light and there is no darkness at all there.
Hansen: I see that, too, Brian. But I can’t remember if I’ve mentioned this in the letter that I sent you. But there are some places where either I need that hermeneutic of love as I’m reading him (John). Or His editors screwed up what he said. Or something. But there is a few places. The one that always comes to my mind as an example is where he uses imagery that feels and sounds sort of violent and dark. And to me, sort of threatening. Even though it’s a parable, the example would be the servants that get cut up into tiny pieces. I’m like, what the hell is with that Jesus? Why? If you want me to have a sense that you and that God can be trusted and ultimately care for me, I know it can hurt following you also. But why would you use an image like that?
McLaren: Let’s use that example. Can we talk about that for a couple minutes? Because, first of all, wouldn’t that be great for a biblical literalist to be as literal about that as they want to be about some of the other parables Jesus told. So that we have the picture now, not only are you in literal flame, but you are cut up into pieces. So there’s however many pieces of you. I guess it’s sort of a, yeah, it’s a shish-kabob, exactly. So I think and we’re laughing. These things shouldn’t be laughed about. But, you know, I just think that’s a great example of how we have this selective literalism that’s just so stunning.
Hansen: But again, I don’t mean to be a pain in the ass. But does the explosion come from God or does it come from God knowing how humanity, how we will reap what we sow?
McLaren: This is, one of the huge problems is the traditional understanding of hell. Because if the cross is in line with Jesus’ teaching then—I won’t say, the only, and I certainly won’t say even the primary—but a primary meaning of the cross is that the kingdom of God doesn’t come like the kingdoms of the this world, by inflicting violence and coercing people. But that the kingdom of God comes through suffering and willing, voluntary sacrifice. But in an ironic way, the doctrine of hell basically says, no, that that’s not really true. That in the end, God gets His way through coercion and violence and intimidation and domination, just like every other kingdom does. The cross isn’t the center then. The cross is almost a distraction and false advertising for God.
Hansen: Oh, Brian, that was just so beautifully said. I was tempted to get on my soap box there and you know—Because as you and I know there are so many illustrations and examples that you could give that show why the tradition view of hell completely falls in the face of—It’s just antithetical to the cross. But the way you put it there, I love that. It’s false advertising. And here, Jesus is saying, turn the other cheek. Love your enemy. Forgive seven times seventy. Return violence with self-sacrificial love. But if we believe the traditional view of hell, it’s like, well, do that for a short amount of time. Because eventually, God’s going to get them.
McLaren: Yeah. And I heard one well-known Christian leader, who—I won’t mention his name, just to protect his reputation. Cause some people would use this against him. But I heard him say it like this: The traditional understanding says that God asks of us something that God is incapable of Himself. God asks us to forgive people. But God is incapable of forgiving. God can’t forgive unless He punishes somebody in place of the person He was going to forgive. God doesn’t say things to you—Forgive your wife, and then go kick the dog to vent your anger. God asks you to actually forgive…. And there’s a certain sense that, a common understanding of the atonement presents a God who is incapable of forgiving. Unless He kicks somebody else.
"A quantum spirituality challenges the church to bear its past and to dare its future by sticking its big TOE into the time and place of the present. ... Then, and only then, will a New Light movement of 'world-making' faith have helped to create the world that is to, and may yet, be. Then, and only then, will earthlings have uncovered the meaning... of the last words poet/activist/contemplative/bridge between East and West Thomas Merton uttered: "We are already one. But we imagine that we are not. And what we have to recover is our original unity." (page 10)In another statement from page 236 of the same work he writes:
The only thing that enters this planet from the outside, besides meteoric dust, is light. Light is our only energy, our only information. Leadership toward the light is the heart of what it means to be New Light. In one medieval manuscript, Ring of Fire, the trinity is defined as a community of light: God is sun, Jesus is Light, and the Holy Spirit is Warmth. A surprisingly central feature of all the world’s religions is the language of light in communicating the divine and symbolizing the union of the human with the divine: Muhammed’s light-filled cave, Moses’ burning bush, Paul’s blinding light, Fox’s “inner light,” Krishna’s Lord of Light, Bohme’s light-filled cobbler shop, Plotinus’ fire experiences, Bodhisattvas with the flow of Kundalini’s fire erupting from their fontanelles, and so on.It doesn’t take much of a stretch of the imagination to see how McClaren or Sweet would have dealt with the Philippian fortune teller. They would have sat down over a cappacino and “dialogued” with her, exploring their common ground and respecting the native integrity of her beliefs based upon the “flickers of the sacred” that burned in her tribal religious culture.
“I frankly believe that at the present time nobody knows what creates homosexual orientations. All the evidence points away from simple, single-cause explanations. But one thing seems clear to me: homosexual orientations are not chosen.”In his concluding arguments on page 210 of the same book, he arrives at the “logical” conclusion that his skewed line of reasoning demands.
“There must be good news for homosexuals. In the likelihood that their sexual orientations will not change, we must do more than simply bid them to be celibate: we must find ways for them to have fulfilling, loving experiences so that their humanity is affirmed and their participation in the body of Christ is ensured”.There is a place for homosexuals in the Body of Christ! If there is room for me, then there is room for them, because my sins are no more repulsive than theirs! The door of entry into Christ’s Church is painted red with the blood of the Lamb of God, and all who turn away from their sin and embrace His substitutionary sacrifice are welcome to enter! If you would like to hear samples of both Campolo and McClaren’s sermons at the “Open Door Community Church” located in the suburbs of Little Rock, Arkansas, a gathering that is led by a homosexual couple, you can do so by visiting their website SherwoodOpenDoor.org. Campolo’s dear wife Peggy goes so far as to say that married homosexuals should be allowed to lead the church while actively living in their Scripturally condemned lifestyle (December 2006 Arkansas Gazette article).
“You all know my friend Tony Campolo. We’ve been friends and colleagues for many years now and I have grown to love and appreciate him. To say that he’s a radical would be an understatement! In fact, he holds some positions that I just can’t stand in agreement with. Though he believes that homosexuality may be biologically preordained and that they should be admitted to ordained ministry, (both of these questions being beyond my ability of accept) I admire his drive and desire to see all men come to Christ. Recently in a luncheon with community leaders in Philadelphia, PA… etc”The audience could have then made their own conclusions about Brother Betzer’s relationship to his friend by saying, “I can understand his dilemma. He wants to remain friends with his long-time colleague while disagreeing on principle with his positions”.
[ Page 1 ] - [ Page 2 ] [ Or click here to go back to the main page ] |
