I've been sucked in to reading and responding on Steve Camp's blog. I think Steve is an interesting guy. I respect his music, but was kind of surprised when I found his blog and read his views. I read a post he wrote asking, "Why hasn't anyone within the EC ecumenical movement... publicly called for the church discipline (Matt. 18:15-20) of Brian McLaren for his aberrant and heretical theological error?"
I had to respond. Well, I didn't have to, but I was so bugged I did. I didn't get far; Steve is not too open to others' perspectives. I went back tonight and posted again. You can read the whole thing at http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2006/07/are-there-any-men-of-god-in-ec.html.
Here is an excerpt from my post:
Steve,
You accused me of not thinking. I have thought more in the last 5 years, as I have searched and questioned and wrestled with Scripture, and faith has become more real and honest and evident in my life; then in the previous 20 years, when I simply believed what I was told to believe.
You are making blanket statements not about individuals, but anyone you consider part of the group you don’t like. I’m really surprised at your sarcasm and prejudice, especially when you implore others to use polite and gentlemanly behavior.
You do a great job of quoting verses to fit your arguments. I’m sure you will have a scathing response to me, filled with verses to refute what I’m saying. I won't go there with you. It's a waste of time, and I don't think it's a productive use of Scripture. I don't think it's how God wants us to use Scripture.
I love Jesus. I love the Bible. You and I see the BIble differently. No two people are going to see everything about it in exactly the same way. While I agree that Scripture is God's Word; any interpretation or understanding you or I have of Scripture is potentially fallible. I believe we are to do the best we can with it, constantly asking God to help us, not condemn and ridicule people because we believe our understanding is right and theirs is wrong.
I believe the Bible is God’s primary way of communicating His love and plan for His people; not a weapon to beat people into submission to our own views. It is a living and vibrant book, full of wisdom and story and mystery, not a set of rules with which to judge people and whip them into line.
I believe the Word, and the Holy Spirt, are powerful enough to point people to Christ. God doesn't need us to make sure everyone else is interpreting and understanding everything exaclty as we think they should.
We should teach, encourage, exhort, challenge; but in a spirit of love and humility, not condemnation.
And again, it’s one thing to disagree, another to accuse one of heresy.
How is this an invitation to discuss? You have your mind made up; anyone who shares a different perspective is ridiculed. You don’t want to discuss, but debate.
I really would like to discuss. I’m not bailing on discussion, as you accused ECers of doing on an earlier blog. I’m willing to talk, and listen. True dialogue means listening with respect; not just pushing one’s views and slamming others'. While I don’t agree with you on a lot; it is clear you have studied Scripture, and I think there is a lot I could learn from you, and in dialogue with you.
I’d really like to hear your views on this N.T. Wright lecture about authority:
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm
I know what kind of response I'll get there; I'm curious to see if anyone else has some feedback.
2 comments:
Thanks, Jim. And thanks for being the first person to post on my blog!
I was reading more of Steve's stuff--as he explained Scripture to someone who, in his opinion, had misinterpreted a passage. One question that came to mind was this: if there is only one clear, obvious, and correct interpretation of every topic and passage; why the need to explain verses in such detail?
I mean, if it is all black and white--no grey, no mystery, why the need to exegete? If God didn't want us to wrestle with Scripture, why didn't he add all the explanation and commentary that people like Steve do? By leaving that to us--imperfect people--it seems obvious to me that He desires diversity, different opinions, conversation, interaction--not "This is what it says; this is what it means. End of story."
I don't know why I spent the time on it; I know guys like Steve, and the women at emergent no are closed off and unwilling to discuss with an open mind.
So it's good to hear from someone who likes to actually converse. Drop back by anytime!
Todd
Dale,
Good to hear from you! I didn't mean to alarm you--I've not gone off the deep end. But my faith continues to evolve; and I think that's a good thing. I don't remember saying anything about all love-no judgement? And I don't get what you mean about tolerance/intolerance. If tolerance means giving approval to beliefs that are wrong; then no, I'm not tolerant. If it means acknowledging the freedom people have to believe what they choose; as an antihesis to discrimination; then I'm ok with that. I don't agree with or approve one who chooses to reject Christ, but I believe he has the freedom to make that choice. And I still seek to love him as Christ does.
I believe in judgement; my concern is that we Christians sometimes get off balance and over emphasize judgement. We will not win people; especially younger generations, by emphasizing judgement. Jesus' love, not judgement, is what first drew me to Him; and that is even more true in a pluralistic culture.
That's what sets our faith apart from other religions; the love and sacrifice of God. Jesus talked about love and judgement; but love was his primary message. And when he talked about judgement, it was usually directed toward the religious leaders; not those labeled "sinners." I'm not saying sinners won't be judged; just that we need to be careful with our judgements.
As for post-modernism, that's a tough one. First of all, it's a hard thing to define, so I'm hesitant to use it as a label on people. We are living in a transitional time between modern and post-modern culture; and the lines are blurred. It's hard to label anyone with one or the other.
Second; I don't see it as any more good or evil than modernism. We always live in tension between Christianity and secular culture. Generally, a lot of post-modern thought is in conflict with Christianity.
But what intrigues me about post-modern culture is a growing interest in spirituality. Yes, that spirituality is often misguided; and pluralistic. But if pepole are searching spiritually, there is opportunity to connect with them and introduce them to Jesus.
I am not for mixing Christianity and post-modern philosophy. I don't think the church can or should become post-modern. (But neither should the church be modern--another issue). But as a minister, I have to realize I am often trying to minister to people in a post-modern context. That's the culture in which they live.
Communicating to them in modern ways doesn't work like it used to. I can't always lead people to Christ by telling them what the Bible says. The Bible has no authority in their minds. I have to find new ways to help them understand truth. The primary way, I believe, is to live out the Gospel in the context of relationships. Serve, give, love. Live as Jesus did. Create a faith community that both teaches and lives the example of Jesus for the world around it. Preach the Gospel in the context of living it out.
Speaking of truth, I struggle with the phrase "absolute truth." Is the word "truth" not enough? Is some truth more true than other truth? Jesus is Truth. The Bible is Truth. But every interpretation and understanding I have is not necessarily absolute truth. The Bible must be interpreted. There are things I believe to be true. I live based on those truths. But we tend to use phrases like "absolute truth" to argue with others, rather than to help us live our lives in relationship to God. I think absolute truth is a label we use to end discussion. "This is the absolute truth; accept it and you're ok; reject it and you're condemned."
The danger with language like that is that we stop being teachable. 150 years ago many Christians believed it was absolutely true that slavery was acceptable. They used passages in the Bible to support this. While we can know truth, we should never be completely closed off to correction.
My basic views haven't changed; what is mostly changing is the language I use. A lot of the language we use in modern church is not Biblical--inerrancy, evangelicalism, premillenial, postmillenial, reformed, fundamentalist, moderate--a few examples. They are modern words we use to explain our interpretations of Scripture.
Take some of the terminology we use to describe what it means to become a Christian--
pray to receive Christ
accept Jesus as Lord and Savior
pray the prayer of salvation
cross the line of faith
commit your life to Christ
Nothing wrong with these phrases, but none are from Scripture. They are the Church's way of using modern language to interpret and explain Scripture. I'm spending more time in Scripture, trying to understand it's language and meaning, and trying to communicate it to people who don't have the same foundation that we do. So my langauge may be different, I listen a lot more than I used to, I am slow to debate and push my opinions (with non-Christians), I may have some different views on minor issues, but I still hold to essential Christian doctrine--God, Jesus, Bible, salvation...
Hope that helps!
Post a Comment