First, there is the knee jerk reaction and immediate assumption by some of us Christians that if people are not religious they are anti-Christian. (Oh and by the way if you are anti-Christian you are also anti-American). In fact the article suggested that all religions and religious tribes are losing ground.  Instead of looking at the context and seeing that though these folks are not interested in religious institutions (and remembering that Jesus was not either)  they are spiritual ; there is the immediate defensive posture that they are hostile to religion and so hostile to us and so hostile to God. There is no consideration of the idea behind Dan Kimball’s book that they might like Jesus but not the church (i.e institutional religion) .

Secondly there is what seems to me to be a weak confidence in God’s word and Jesus message that feeds the fixation on personal salvation as all that matters. I need to get heaven and the rest be damned. Religion is the ticket to heaven. Not faith mind you religion. So if we are losing our religion then we are shaking the very foundations of the faith. Never mind that Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail against the the church. I believe that God in control and will ways be in control and though the church or religion may be shaken, the faith of Abraham, Jesus and Paul will not no matter what craziness we mixed up messed up human beings get into.

So I don’t blame the average pew sitter in this. it is some of our religious leaders that truly worry and scare. Watch the video that was sent to me to rebut my thoughts about living faithfully in a post-religious world.

[youtube OH1yOmij7Q4 nolink]

john mcarthur’s religious views on the emergent church

But there is blame to go around on all sides there are some folks with new perspectives on the faith that seem intent on disconnecting from the historical biblical Christian faith.  It gives dogmatic people fodder for their views and lets them paint anyone not agreeing their dogmatic views with the same brush and leads to responses like the one below to my above thoughts.

Either or propositions? What? Are we all Hindus now too? Truth is ALWAYS an “either or proposition.” You yourself cannot follow your own line when you refer to truth as being Scripture. (No relativist ever can live his own propositions.) I do agree that salvation is “holistic” (I really hate all these goopy trendy words) – spirit, soul, body. But the great, overwhelming emphasis in Scripture was on the spiritual, the eternal, the Kingdom that flesh and blood cannot inherit.

Years ago church consultant Bill Easum suggested to a group of church leaders that one of the biggest challenges for Jesus followers moving into the future was going to be the question how can I follow Jesus without being a bigot. I think he was asking us to consider how can we stand for Jesus without blowing off the very people Jesus calls us to reach.

So I wonder what will faith look like in post-religious world? Will there be a church for the post-religious or will we all be heading to hell in an hand basket?

I wonder if defenders of the truth will descend on this blog to prove their point and share their view, we will see.

Technorati Tags: Bill Easum, christianity, christian_faith, christian_perspective, Dan Kimball, emergent_church, emerging church, Jesus, MacArthur, religion, truth, unchristian

The coming evangelical collapse | csmonitor.com

Check out  http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-aris-study-christianity-on-the-decline-in-america for more thoughts on this from the original source for the CS monitor post.

Technorati Tags: christianity, collapse, evangelicalism, evangelicals, post-religious, religion

This enthusiastic bunch bash and trash anything and everything that doesn’t fit their very narrow view of "church". Tehy don’t look at context or even try to see beyond anything that doesn’t meet withtheir approval. One good thing is everyone one is fair game for their attacks. They are equal opportunity attackers. Seem their slice of Laodicea could use a good dose of grace.

  I just don’t get it. If you do let me know, clue me in.

Technorati Tags: anne_lamott, christianity, emergent

the da Vinci code

Year: 2006

Writer: Dan Brown/Akiva Goldsman

Director: Ron Howard

Producer: Dan Brown/Brian Grazer

Category: Drama

Studio: Columbia Pictures

Distributor: Sony Pictures

Rating from MPAA: PG-13

Cast:

Robert Langdon: Tom Hanks

Sophie Neveu: Audrey Tautou

Sir Leigh Teabing: Ian McKellen

Silas: Paul Bettany

Bezu Fache: Jean Reno

Lt. Collet: Etienne Chicot

Bishop Aringarosa: Alfred Molina

Tags: christianity, dan_brown, da_vinci_code_the_movie, faith, faith-&-culture, movie-&-tv, opus_dei, reviews

Technorati Tags: christianity, dan_brown, da_vinci_code_the_movie, faith, faith & culture, movie-&-tv, opus_dei, reviews

GUIDE TO CHRISTIAN VIEWERS This movie is not appropriate to bring: 1) young children to– the violence and self-flagellations scenes involving Silas the monk are too much for the young; 2) likewise this movie is going to raise numerous questions for people not well grounded in their faith, especially those of Roman Catholic background. I am not urging them to see it either. 3) Those who know the Bible, but not much about church history (including modern church history– e.g. what is Opus Dei) are not going to be able to dialogue with the inquisitive about this movie very well since it is more about church history than it is about anything in the Bible itself.

Thanks to mike for the link  my review will be posted later.

Technorati Tags: christianity, church_history, da_vinci_code_the_movie, faith, faith & culture, movies & tv, opus_dei, roman_catholic

A number of people have asked about the title. Some people are concerned that it has “Gnostic connotations.” Obviously, I was aware that some might draw this conclusion, but my main audience for the book (and really, for most of my books) is not members of the Christian subculture who would even know what “Gnostic” means. Instead, my primary audience is the “spiritual but not religious” people who are interested in what Jesus was about, but are generally turned off by the Religious Right, institutional religion, etc. I felt that the title would connect with this audience, and I was willing to risk being misunderstood for that purpose. Jesus, I think, took similar risks again and again. As I worked on the book, I was repeatedly struck by how “strategically indirect” Jesus was – hiding his message in parable, sign, and wonder. I began to realize that this strategy of hiddenness was integral to Jesus’ whole message and ministry. I think people who read the book will be struck by this theme as well.

Well here is it Living Journey » The secret teachings of Brian McLaren  here’s his response to the idea that Jesus used parables strategically.

Let’s look at Matthew 13, and see if the above is in accordance with scripture.

Mat 13:9-14 The one having ears to hear, let him hear. And coming near, the disciples said to Him, Why do You speak to them in parables? Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven, And answering, He said to them, but it has not been given to those. For whoever has, to him will be given, and he will have overabundance. But whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. Because of this, I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. And the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled on them, which says, "In hearing you will hear and in no way understand, and seeing you will see yet in no way perceive.

Ok, firstly the parables are not for them (the unsaved), but for us his disciples.

I haven’t gotten a copy of the book yet so I can’t rebut any of the comments on the book but the idea that the parables were only for the "saved" seems simplistic if not dead wrong. I expect even more of this kind of rhetoric to come. I’m looking for ward to this conversation in the blogosphere. What say you?

Technorati Tags: bible, Brian_McLaren, christianity, emerging church, gnostic, newtestament, parables, religion, religious_right, spiritual-practice

jump-start a religious movement that will transcend partisan politics. Believing that Jesus is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, we want to unite Christians who are concerned about what is happening in America.

Having recently met with some political types in our state I was amazed to find out how few political folks thought realized that not all people of faith subscribed to the Pat Robertson view of the world. It seems that conventional wisdom was the Christian faith community all looked at the world the same way had constituency had already been wrapped up by one side of the political debate.

Being a person who doesn’t buy into either of the extremes I’m excited to here someone like Campolo calling for Christian engagement that moves beyond partisan politics. God is not a Republican or Democrat. God is God and to tie God to one political arm or the other seems like political expedience that borders on blasphemy to me. I think Christians that engage in the public square in a way that glorifies God when we take the whole counsel of scripture to heart and we don’t cherry pick one or two issues.

That is what I think Bono (among other unorthodox Christ followers) is doing

Technorati Tags: bono, christianity, conventional_wisdom, evangelicals, faith & culture, partisan_politics, religious_movement, tony_campolo

Anne Rice from vampires to Jesus — Beliefnet.com

Technorati Tags: anne_rice, books, christianity, faith, faith & culture, in the news, jesus_christ

He quotes Jelks

I am not free if my sister is not free.
I am not free if my brother is not free.
I am not free if my neighbor is not free

I’ll borrow a page from that Jelks’ book African Americans in the Furniture City: The Struggle for Civil Rights in Grand Rapids and say this;

• the emerging church cannot emerge if it doesn’t see confronting the issue of racism and racial reconciliation as an central to its mission.
• the emerging church cannot emerge until it engages God’s mandate to "practice Pentecost" (see Anthony Smith)
• the emerging church cannot emerge until it is actively pursuing the spiritual practice racial reconciliation.
  

racial reconciliation as missional value

One of the values of the emerging church ( as posited by emergent) is to practice the way of Jesus. Jesus started his ministry with a declaration of his mission to bring justice and relief from oppression.(Luke 4:18-19). He called on God’s on people to recognize this missional value and act on it. The first act of God’s spirit in and through the early church was to bring reconciliation to God and among the races at Pentecost where people from different people groups were able to hear the good news. One of the first acts of evangelism flowed through and act of reconciliation. So many of the missional values of the emerging church conversation, speaking through to power, seeing to the needs of the poor, and embracing inclusion can be significantly addressed through the spiritual practice of (racial) reconciliation.

racial reconciliation as biblical imperative

This makes me think that the emerging church will really begin to emerge when we act on the patterns of Jesus and we "do life together" in a ways that gives social justice, inclusion and praxis as much play as theology & epistemology.

racial reconciliation as spiritual practice

I’m not judging the emerging church, emergent or anyone connected with it. But I do yearn for something more from the emerging church. I think as a community we need to pursue racial reconciliation as spiritual practice. To quote Thurman

Community cannot for long feed on itself; it can only flourish with the coming of others from beyond, their unknown and undiscovered brothers. The Search for Common Ground

We can start by broadening the theological framework to include non European theological contributions. We can pursue intentional trans racial relationships in the conversation. We can organize emerging church events which focus and providing opportunities for these kinds of relationship to develop. We can listen not defensively but humbly to each other stories paying close attention to the post-colonial story. We need to act not talk just about inclusion.Then we might emerge into the image painted in this poem.

If I knew you  and you knew me,
And of each of us could clearly see
By the inner light divine,
The meaning of your life and mine,
I am sure that we would differ less,
And clasp our hands in  friendliness
If I knew you and you knew me

At Church Next Sunday (author unknown)

Its like this "no praxis no peace." If we don’t have a generous orthopraxis then we can really have peace in the church, emerging or not.

What do you think? take the poll Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Technorati Tags: african_american, christianity, emergent, emerging_church, orthopraxis, racial_reconciliation

Dark-skinned theologians???…wait…but…but….isn’t Jesus that pale-white, blue-eyed guy with the shag haircut from the seventies?
Laura 

post-emergent. Is that like post-post modern?

Yeah, I’m kinda on the fence with this one as well. I’ve noticed the all-talk-no-action mentality, and the "we’re here to please everybody" kinda mentality, and the fad-ish mentality… the "we like this because it’s new". I’ve also noticed that a lot of the emergent movement has been born out of the church-burned, which, you know what? If you got burned by a church and you want to go on and do church differently, as long as you’re not contradicting the life and words of Christ, you have at it! It’s better than turning your back on God because of what’s happened to you. An awful lot of the emergent movement is simply an accepting that we’re stumbling and bumbling through this walk and we don’t always get it right. We haven’t gotten it right and we still won’t get it right, but we’ll at least try to do better than we have.

So I don’t have big qualms with the movement as a whole… it’d be difficult too, as it’s a little bit nebulous for that. I do have issues with a couple of people that I’ve met who call themselves "emergent Christian" who are really just trying to reconcile their beliefs with what they really would RATHER being doing. But the movement as a whole? No big issues.

~Crystal

I fail to see how terms such as "white, male and academic" are significant here unless Andre places more importance on race, sex, and IQ than the content of the conversation.

Reading NT Wright and using emergent-speak does seem to be a pre-requisite to credibility with the leaders of emergent. They don’t seem to value ideals or counterpoints of those who don’t share their lingo. However, the initial statement has nothing to do with "White Europeans" or their "theological framework". To insinuate that is racist. Language is not a product of skin color.

Diversity is at the core of emergent. Diversity in theology, practice, etc. But racial diversity is something I dismiss as outright racism. As if a person’s skin color, hair color, or eye color makes them special. It’s not our differences that bind us together, but our similarities. As long as we continue to make our differences the focal point of our relationships, we’ll never function together as one body. I propose we abandon "diversity" speak and learn to work together for a common purpose without regard to race, ethnicity, or nationality.

green19

Pointing out the skin color over and above the topic of "the conversation" goes beyond identifying the group.  It assumes that because of the color of their skin, or racial heritage,  their product will somehow be less than useful for anyone else.  It also assumes an inherent bias toward non-whites by anyone involved in the conversation.  This is pre-judging without sufficient evidence. 

If I said that the NBA is 99% black therefore I’ll not watch the NBA nor have anything to do with it, I would be labeled a racist outright.  The same logic should be applied to your statement.

Additionally, the bible was written by non-blacks.  By the same logic the bible is not useful or meaningfully to people of african heritage or black skin.  Therefore no black or african-american should subscribe to any bible-believing religion.

The issue of "diversity" as it is used in politics is hardly cherry picking.  It is a morbid failure that should be obvious to any critical thinker without a political agenda.   The rest of your statement lacks merit.

We don’t need black men in "the conversation" we need godly men.  We don’t need representation of all races, ethnic groups, or nations, in the conversation, we need godly people.  (On an unrelated topic, we need the views of the ungodly as well).  To suggest that because the majority of emergent is white, therefore you don’t have a voice, is just plain silly.  You and I are talking, there’s your voice.  What, do you want to talk to Tony Jones or Mclaren?  Guess what, I’m white and they don’t bother talking to me.   (I don’t read NT Wright, and I’m a horrible writer.  I don’t blame them for not hunting me down and featuring me in their latest book).  You’re already IN the conversation, we just don’t agree.  I could care less that you’re black.  I could care less that I’m white.  I don’t wear my culture on my sleeve.  I don’t give a *expletive* about my heritage. My identity isn’t as important as the identity of "the body".

You want to know my personal rant?  "Get rid of the *expletive* racist *expletive*  and we’ll be able to see each other as people instead of skin". Problem solved. (and maurice calls me an idealist pfffttt)

green19

Green: Your posts are wonderfully idealistic and I am grateful for that. However I just don’t see that as the reality. Maybe I’ve been in this conversation too long and become to cynical.

Let me clarify what I’m saying. I’m not using diversity in they way it is used in politics, I’m using the way it is expressed in scripture. Jesus great commission is to go make Jesus followers of every people group. So if a people group (race or culture) is missing from the conversation are we being true to that calling? Are we really emerging into a new kind of church/christian?
Reading the emergent order as posted on emergent village there is a stated commitment to diversity beyond theology and practice.

[b]"To build friendships across racial, ethnic, economic and other boundaries"[/b]

So I’m not inserting anything that isn’t already there.

I’m not making race the only issue. What I am saying is by virtue of the participants the  conversation undeniably takes on a particular tone and perspective. That’s true of any conversation. Beyond that, I am suggesting this; if the conversation can’t be enriched by having people outside of the dominant culture participate, then at least those folks should take time to look at the theological contributions of some folks outside the dominant culture to enrich the conversation.

maybe I’m wrong but the world isn’t color (culture) blind. Race may be a social construct and a horribly destructive one at that but to just say it doesn’t or shouldn’t factor into our understanding of the cultural context in church the church is emerging creates a huge blind spot (pun intended). Frankly I don’t want it to be color (culture) blind I want the conversation to be color (culture) rich.

You have the ability to say race doesn’t matter to you because you are white. In order to understand the problem or race and why I think racial reconciliation has to be a part of the emerging church conversation you will need to broaden your understanding or race and racism. There are elements of white privilege and power that you may not be aware of at work that make you way of thinking though wonderfully idealistic somewhat disconnected from the reality of those around you who aren’t white and aren’t interested in ignoring our heritage (or have the luxury of doing so). This is why I believe Brian McLaren has said we need to revisit the post-colonial story.

I am enjoying hearing your thoughts its adds to my perspective.

Andre

Technorati Tags: christianity, emergent, emerging_church, praxis, racial_reconciliation, racism