Does Humility Risk More Than Arrogance? (A Dialogue Too Friendly for Focus on the Family - Part 3, by Brian McLaren)
[Continued from parts one and two. Click here to read the full response as one post.] On Jan. 3, Focus on the Family's CitizenLink criticized those of us who responded to an invitation to dialogue with 138 Muslim scholars. As an early signatory to the document, I thought I would reply to the criticism. (Focus on the Family's statements are in italics.)
8. Mohler said the agreement "sends the wrong signal" and contains basic theological problems, especially in "marginalizing" Jesus Christ. He also condemned the apology for the Crusades. "I just have to wonder how intellectually honest this is," he said. "Are these people suggesting that they wish the military conflict with Islam had ended differently — that Islam had conquered Europe?"
Would it send the right signal if we rebuffed their request for dialogue? Does it marginalize Jesus Christ to try to practice his teaching by loving our neighbor, loving the "other," reaching out to those whom we have offended and who have offended us in a desire to seek reconciliation and make peace? Are you aware of the atrocities associated with the Crusades – the rape, torture, mass slaughter – all by people who were supposed to be in a tradition of "just war theory?" Are you unaware that our behavior fell far below that of our own ideals, and don't you believe we should acknowledge that fact? Are you aware of how your line of thought could be used today to justify torture and other atrocities – that, to achieve a desired outcome in a "military conflict with Islam," we are justified in resorting to any and all means that were used in the Crusades? Do you realize how horrible this sounds – not just to a Muslim, but also to a fellow Christian?
9. Gary Bauer, president of the Campaign for Working Families, told CitizenLink the NAE leaders "have left the (card) table without their pants — that is, they've been taken and may not even realize they've been taken."
Was Jesus more concerned about "being taken" or giving himself to the dangerous work of reconciliation? Was it a mistake for him to allow himself to be stripped naked at the "table" of the cross? Whose politics should we professed followers of Christ follow in situations like this? And how do you know we have been taken? On what do you base your suspicion? Could your suspicion be a matter of religious prejudice, perhaps bordering on racism? How would you know if a group of Muslim scholars were completely sincere in their desire to reach out for peace? How do you defend your suspicion in light of the teaching of Jesus, which invites us to forgive seventy times 7 offenses in the pursuit of reconciliation?
10. Bauer said he already was dismayed by the NAE's recent controversial excursions into questionable areas such as global warming.
Can you see, even though you may disagree with it, the logic of our actions – those of us who are concerned about both the stewardship of the planet and the pursuit of peace with our Muslim neighbors? Can you see that Jesus' love for "outsiders" – the Syrophonecian woman, the Samaritan woman, the Roman centurion, not to mention notorious sinners – motivates us to love our Muslim neighbors; and it motivates us to join God in caring for the birds of the air and flowers of the field? Do you understand how for many of us these "excursions" flow from our understanding of Jesus' message – the good news of the kingdom of God?
11. Sookhdeo called for Christian leaders who signed the letter to withdraw their names, saying the confession of guilt puts Christian communities in Muslim areas of the world at risk.
By this reasoning, would you oppose the invasion of Iraq because it also put Christian communities in Muslim areas of the world at risk? And does it put Christians at risk more when Christians humbly admit their faults, or when they arrogantly remain in denial about them? When they reach out in friendship in response to Muslim scholars, or when they rebuff requests for dialogue?
Brian McLaren (brianmclaren.net) was a pastor for 24 years. Now he serves as board chair for Sojourners. His most recent book is Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope, and he launches an 11-city tour at the end of January (deepshift.org). Just before the tour begins, he will be in Davos for the World Economic Forum, participating in Muslim-Christian dialogue.
Add to:
Category: Islam, Religious Right
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Brian,
Your response to the remarks made by Focus on the Family are simply wise and loving. You truly reflected Christ in the questions you posed and in the answers you gave. Beautiful!
Keep writing Brother.
Posted by: Steve | January 10, 2008 12:07 PM
I think the major opposition to living the life of a Christian is making it a religion .
Posted by: Mick | January 10, 2008 12:10 PM
Excellent, Brian, excellent. Of your three posts in this regard, this one especially crystalizes that the gospel you are contending for begins with the words of Jesus and judges national or traditional perspectives accordingly, as opposed to beginning with national or traditional perspectives and then attempting to stuff the teachings of Jesus in and around the same like so much superfluous packaging in a carton transporting a Machivallian product.
Posted by: canucklehead | January 10, 2008 12:38 PM
Bottom line, it's time we "walked our talk."
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 10, 2008 12:42 PM
Brian,
Your posts beg the question: How would FOTF respond "A Common Word?"
Salaam alaikum
Posted by: neuro_nurse | January 10, 2008 2:09 PM
Good work Brian.
Posted by: carl copas | January 10, 2008 2:50 PM
"Was Jesus more concerned about "being taken" or giving himself to the dangerous work of reconciliation?"
Neither. I think the pants analogy is strange, but Jesus was not principally about reconciliation either.
And again, if this is about reconciliation, why not cite common ground on issues such as homosexuality in church leadership (and perhaps repenting for our allowance of same)? Surely that message would resonate with Muslims, were that the goal.
My criticism of the letter would be that it not only reaches out to Muslims, but does so in a way that must be approved by the religious left. If that were included, I am pretty sure McLaren, the Episcopals and the Ivy Div schoolers would have backed out. Had they done so, would they have been vulnerable to charges that they were rebuffing dialogue?
Posted by: kevin s. | January 10, 2008 3:25 PM
i think jesus was entirely about reconciliation. god the son became man so that we could be reconciled to god the father.
Posted by: mandy | January 10, 2008 3:34 PM
I certainly think that a greater awareness of global climate change and the need to get us off of fossil fuels and on to more sustainable sources of energy is important. And I think that dialog with the Islamic world is important as well. Apologizing for the Crusades crosses a very clear line though. For centuries Western Civilization was in a war for its very survival against Muslim invaders from the South and the East. To apply the standards of today to the conduct of European soldiers in the 12th Century is absurd, and even more so in an apology to people who still chop off hands for theft, stone women to death for adultery, and behead people for a long list of seemingly minor crimes.
Posted by: John | January 10, 2008 3:48 PM
And again, if this is about reconciliation, why not cite common ground on issues such as homosexuality in church leadership (and perhaps repenting for our allowance of same)? Surely that message would resonate with Muslims, were that the goal.
That may come in time eventually but not now. Some of the people that radical Muslims hate are every bit as anti-gay as they.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 10, 2008 4:09 PM
It seems to me that the "reponse" by Focus on The Family reveals their REAL intent-to build upon their OWN power gained during the last presidential election, and not to spread the Gospel of reconciliation. Sad that an organization with so much influence dedicates itself to hate-mongering and divisiveness instead of trying to build peaceful bridges with all humanity.
Jesus died for ALL people, not just those who pray a certain way, or vote a certain way, or think a certain way.
Pray for Peace
Posted by: Doug & Jan in CO | January 10, 2008 4:41 PM
Thank-you Brian, particularly for #11, where you write, "By this reasoning, would you oppose the invasion of Iraq because it also put Christian communities in Muslim areas of the world at risk?" I was with a group of students in Syria a few months ago, and one of the students asked a Christian (Egyptian) woman living there what American Christians could do to help Middle Eastern Christians. The first thing she said was, "Vote". "Vote against things like the invasion of Iraq, vote against uncritical support for Israel, vote against politicians who promote war over dialogue." If Sookhdeo believes that Middle Eastern Christians are only now at risk because of American Christians' actions, he must seriously examine the impact of Republican/right-wing support for debacles such as Iraq on the safety of Christians in the Middle East. Because many Muslims I have spoken to associate Bush with Christianity, and Republicans with Christianity, they therefore directly associate the invasion of Iraq with our faith. That has done far more damage than any "confession of guilt" regarding the Crusades ever will.
In addition, I would like to comment on those who believe that "apologizing for the Crusades crosses a very clear line." Not only is redemption, reconciliation and forgiveness central to the message of Christ, but also, what would we in North America have said if no Muslims had stepped out after 9/11 to point out that those who committed those atrocities did not symbolize their faith? I continually hear calls for moderate Muslims to speak up and out against extremism, and yet when the NAE does the very same thing for Christians in speaking up against the extremism of the Crusades, it is criticized heavily. I find no sense in this.
Posted by: DJN | January 10, 2008 4:58 PM
"My criticism of the letter would be that it not only reaches out to Muslims, but does so in a way that must be approved by the religious left."
I wonder what other responses have been made to "A Common Word" - those that do not necessarily represent the interest of the religious left. What responses have been made from conservative Christians?
On a previous thread I cited a news article stating that in response to "A Common Word" the Vatican is planning meetings with Muslim leaders.
Other than in matters of the social teachings of the Church, the Vatican, and this Pope in particular, do not represent the interests of the religious left, and Benedict XVI will certainly not bend theology or doctrine to satisfy a political end.
John Paul II was very well liked, but I get the distinct impression that Benedict XVI really doesn't care what people think about him - he's not trying to be liked.
Posted by: neuro_nurse | January 10, 2008 5:12 PM
John Paul seemed more about loving people than doctrine. I can't say the same thing about Benedict.
p
Posted by: payshun | January 10, 2008 5:35 PM
Mandy: "I think jesus was entirely about reconciliation. god the son became man so that we could be reconciled to god the father."
Hear, hear.
I'll go further. I think God's entire involvement with our race since the Fall has been organized around reconciliation -- God with humans, humans with humans. Jesus emphasized that as the centerpiece of his ministry and, throughout both Old and New Testaments, God has worked for reconciliation.
If Christians are working for reconciliation with Muslims, that is very much part of God's work.
Posted by: steve | January 10, 2008 5:57 PM
"John Paul seemed more about loving people than doctrine. I can't say the same thing about Benedict."
John Paul II stood just as firmly on Catholic doctrine as Benedict XVI. In fact, both men are responsible for the current Catechism of the Catholic Church.
I don't feel that Benedict has gotten a fair trial in the Court of Public Opinion. The media has repeatedly mischaracterized things he has said or written.
From reading his letters and a couple of his books, my impression of Benedict is that he is very concerned with Christian expressions of love in the forms of charity and justice, and is just as outspoken in those matters as John Paul II.
Benedict is not the warm-fuzzy pope that John Paul was, but he has gained my respect and admiration both as a Catholic and as a liberal.
Posted by: neuro_nurse | January 10, 2008 6:24 PM
Thank you, Brian.
I do believe that the actions of so-called Christian nations have damaged the cause of Christ.
Please pray for the people at Focus on the Family. I believe that they were called by the Lord to help to strengthen families. They have helped many people, but their forays into politics have drawn their eyes from the very thing they were called to focus on.
Dobson and company have needed to fight so many spiritual battles. It seems as though once an organization gets into fighting mode, the adrenaline leads them to fight in arenas outside the call they have from the Lord.
I believe that FOTF can be brought back to its call. Let's pray for that. Let's pray that God will give them a fruitful ministry.
Posted by: Kevin Brubaker | January 10, 2008 6:29 PM
Dobson and company have needed to fight so many spiritual battles. It seems as though once an organization gets into fighting mode, the adrenaline leads them to fight in arenas outside the call they have from the Lord.
You have an excellent point there. I've become a fan of John Eldredge ("Wild at Heart" etc.), and he mentioned that you simply cannot let the fight consume you to a point that you live to fight and fight to live. But it may take entirely new leadership at FOTF for change to happen because I think Dobson himself is in way too deep -- it could be that stuff like this defines him today; I have on good information that he's a bit of an autocrat.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 10, 2008 8:19 PM
I have read no books by Benedict, yet.
"I don't feel that Benedict has gotten a fair trial in the Court of Public Opinion. "
I can understand that. I think he has, he got the same treatment as John Paul did. The only difference is that he has not had as long a history as John Paul. Public opinion was against the vatican and the Pope when it came to church corruption scandals, particularly when it concerned child molestation. Pope John Paul (great man that he was) was seen as out of date and powerless. Pope John Paul had a larger historical record that reflected great global leadership (the fall of the Berlin Wall, forgiving the man that killed him...) The world has yet to see that influence in the same way w/ Benedict. Your'e right he is not warm and fuzzy. But I did not see John Paul as that way.
I saw John Paul as someone that was more of a reconciler. Public opinion has not been as kind to Benedict and that's because he really doesn't care what others think of him. It's a great trait to have as a human being but not necessarily the greatest trait as a politician.
p
Posted by: payshun | January 10, 2008 8:44 PM
Thank you, Brian, for so succintly and eloquently articulating a truly Christian stance. Jesus is all about reconciliation and I am proud that there is a segment of the US evangelical community that understands and proclaims that truth.
Peace.
Posted by: JamesMartin | January 10, 2008 9:34 PM
Eastern Christians in danger because of the ignorant crusader mentality of western Christians? Nothing new there. The 300 million of us who are Eastern Christians know about the 1206 sack of Constantinople, the center of the other half of the Christian world, by western militants. Which also raises a challenge to the claim that the west held off Muslim invasions. While the Byzantines were not entirely confortable with their Islamic and non-Chalcedonian Christian neighbors, they managed to thrive alongside them for some 700 years. Thus there always was a viable alternative to war. Had the physical and diplomatic buffer between the Islamic east and the Christian west been left intact, world history would likely have been very different.
Posted by: Rafi S | January 10, 2008 10:43 PM
Rafi,
thank you for introducing some history to the conversation.
Posted by: carl copas | January 10, 2008 11:42 PM
Thank you Brian
I might add, reconcilliation is the first step that certainly makes discipleship possible.
An Apostle once entered a city having many statues to many gods, one statue said for the unknown god. This Apostle did not before attempt shake dust from his shoe and leave, but commented to these people they certainly were very religious.
What if questions give no answer's, why not attitude however opens opportunities that certainly God can fulfill.
Posted by: DeWayne | January 11, 2008 12:10 AM
"That may come in time eventually but not now."
It won't come in time.
If we are trying to respect Islam, maybe we ought to take a moment and consider the notion that they have researched what they believe. The religious left (or whatever label they decide upon for themselves) seems to consider Islam a particularly exotic version of Christianity.
The assumption, therefore, is that Muslims are similarly interested in social justice, homosexual tolerance, women in church leadership, and whatever it is that the liberal church is interested in. Perhaps even moreso, what with Muslims being so ethnic and all.
In reality, they do not exist as an extension of the liberal Christian worldview. I am willing to bet that the average Muslim is fully aware of the Eugene Robinsons of our church. If they read our Bible, and many of them do, how can they not be confused by our rejection of our own doctrine?
All of this begs the question. To whom are these evangelicals reaching out? Is this a sincere attempt to evangelize to Muslims, or is this a public relations stunt aimed at an American audience?
Either way, McLaren should respond to criticisms in an honest way. Nobody has said that dialogue is a bad thing.
I agree that Eldridge is great, and I agree that Dobson is out of his element.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 11, 2008 3:20 AM
It seems to me as always that things boil down to the Christian mission statement "Love the Lord with all your heart, mind and sould AND love your neighbour as yourself"
I should point out....it does not say "love your neighbour as yourself....as long as you both are in full agreement on everything...that you worship and think the same way and that they have a full appreciation and love for all things Western"
As a Christian my mandate to love my fellow man has nothing to do with how they act, understand, believe or anything else. My job is to love as best I can....worship my God as best I can....and allow God to move in His way. Ultimately it is God that moves people...even those who we do not think will ever see it our way....all i can do is approach people with love and understanding and hope that God will see fit to use me.
Now....I am sure this has a level of niavetee but it works for me.
Ender
Posted by: Ender | January 11, 2008 6:43 AM
I will statrt with a quotation:
"A people without history cannot be redeemed" (Four Quartets, T.S. Eliot).
Thank you for an interesting dialogue but some History is in need to get perspective on reality(as Rafi above has introduced some notions).
The Church is concerned with power just as politicians are. Our values may be dear to us - but not necessarily to others. One needs tolerance and dialogue, which have limits.
Jesus, by the account we read in the Bible, was working on a different worldview to that of his time (and of today's), fighting old unjust values, powers installed both in the temple and in political domination. He was handed over by the politician (Pilatos) to the power of the temple, which condemned Him, considering Him too dangerous as He dragged crowds of people listening to His words of hope in new and different systems of organizing life.
Reconciliation is good only if one does not throw away one's values - only possible with tolerance, not humiliation of the other. But there times when one has to fight for those values or else they are despised and taken by the stronger power.
Posted by: Eva | January 11, 2008 7:05 AM
It is disturbing to see people that call themselves Christians slip into mediocrity under the guise of finding common ground with Muslims.
I suppose we should also apologize to the Muslim people for what happened to Saddam? Maybe we should apologize to Japan to bombing Hiroshima and Nagasake? Maybe Texans should apologize to Mexico for the Battle of the Alamo, too? Hey, let's even ask the Jews to ask the Nazi's for forgiveness for the Holocaust. Yeah, that's what Jesus would do. NOT!
Yes, Jesus was all about reconciliation, but he also told his disciples to shake the dust off of their sandals as they left a city that would not receive them.
Jesus' interaction with prostitutes, tax collectors and the other "outsiders" was for the purpose of bringing them to repentance for their sins, not to make them feel comfortable in their sin. Despite the popular notion, Jesus never set an example for tolerance. (Unless one's idea of tolerance is turning over tables and calling the religious phonies of His day "vipers" and "whited walls".)
The concept of finding common ground with Mulsims, environmentalists and gays is, at best, foolish and dangerous. "Christians" that embrace this sort of liberal, new age, watered-down perversion of the gospel come across as either sick or insane.
God instructed Israel to utterly destroy the nations they went to war against. Jesus taunted the Pharisees and Saducees for their watered-down religion. Jesus was a Rock of Offense and he told us we would be hated for His sake. His love for "outsiders", as they are called in this thread, never went so far as compromising who He was.
To see this sort of post-modern, pop culture, philosophy eroding the foundation of Christianity certainly points to the sort of "falling away" of Believers in the last days that scripture warns us of.
Church! Wake up! Don't drink this Kool-Aid.
Posted by: Mr. Fox | January 11, 2008 7:05 AM
Mr. Fox, I consider myself a Christian AND an environmentalist. I am offended by your hateful comments.
Yes, Jesus told us we would be hated for his sake, but he never encouraged us to promote and encourage people to hate us.
Why is a proposal to talk to people so threatening to you?
Peace,
Posted by: Don | January 11, 2008 7:42 AM
Regarding the Crusades:
No, the Crusades were not any more violent or any more vicious than other wars of the time. Yes, the Crusades were in part a reaction to 400 years of military pressure on western Europe from the Muslim Arab armies.
However:
The scandal of the Crusades was that the Church of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, raised an army to fight under the banner of the Cross and under the name of our Saviour. Christians are right to apologize for this action. If there was just cause for war, the armies should have been raised by the kings and princes, not by the Pope.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | January 11, 2008 7:50 AM
Thank you Brian for taking a loving yet prophetic stance.
Posted by: David Ramos | January 11, 2008 8:29 AM
"The assumption, therefore, is that Muslims are similarly interested in social justice, homosexual tolerance, women in church leadership, and whatever it is that the liberal church is interested in. Perhaps even moreso, what with Muslims being so ethnic and all..."Kevin S.
Either way, McLaren should respond to criticisms in an honest way. Nobody has said that dialogue is a bad thing..." Kevin S.
I find it highly ironic that you would call for McLaren to respond to criticisms in an honest way when the way you describe the progressive Christian view of Islam is such an inaccurate portrayal. Good faith in dialogue is a two way street. Your inaccurate depiction of the Progressive Christian view of Islam, whether deliberately dishonest, or merely distorted by your view of reality, in no way furthers the conversation.
Posted by: JamesMartin | January 11, 2008 9:20 AM
Don:
"Mr. Fox, I consider myself a Christian AND an environmentalist. I am offended by your hateful comments.
Yes, Jesus told us we would be hated for his sake, but he never encouraged us to promote and encourage people to hate us.
Why is a proposal to talk to people so threatening to you?"
You are either putting words in my mouth or need to re-read my post. I do not have an issue with you being an environmentalist if that tickles your fancy.
What is an issue--a spiritual problem, in fact--is for people (Christians) to elevate their personal opinions about the environment and playing nice with Muslims, gays (or any other thing you want to pick) as being part of the Gospel of Christ, or something that others of a different persuasion to do to be in good standing with God.
The Apostle Paul spoke about those that add to or take away from the Gospel as being in danger of judgment. The Gospel is summarized in John 3:16 and was lived out by Jesus disciples, and should be lived out by us.
When Jesus asked Peter "who do you say I am", Peter declared, "Christ, Son of the Living God." And Jesus response was that it was on this "rock" or declaration that he would build His church.
Christ taught us to love our enemies, pray for our leaders and to live holy before God. He did not teach tolerance for sin, or social agendas such as environmentalism. Christ did not preach against war.
I am not belittling anyone that cares about the environment, or anyone that feels passionate about anything else. I just do not want to see anyone trying to pass off those things as being a legitimate part of their christianity.
Be willing to have dialogue with pagans that hate people that do not want anything but death for those 'infidels' that do not acknowledge allah as God or Muhammed as his prophet is not something that I can find in my Bible, unless I take some piece of scripture out of context.
James Dobson and Focus on the Family has as much Biblical support for their position as any position against it, and there are a huge number of people who, like me, share those views; including Jew and Gentile, Christian and otherwise... and we are just as passionate about them as the dissenters.
Posted by: Mr. Fox | January 11, 2008 9:52 AM
I'll go further. I think God's entire involvement with our race since the Fall has been organized around reconciliation -- God with humans, humans with humans. Jesus emphasized that as the centerpiece of his ministry and, throughout both Old and New Testaments, God has worked for reconciliation.
If Christians are working for reconciliation with Muslims, that is very much part of God's work."
thanks steve!! it totally agree. and i think god's work reaches out to not just muslims, but every race,, nationality, sexual preference, religion (or not), etc....
Posted by: mandy | January 11, 2008 9:55 AM
" The scandal of the Crusades was that the Church of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, raised an army to fight under the banner of the Cross and under the name of our Saviour. Christians are right to apologize for this action. If there was just cause for war, the armies should have been raised by the kings and princes, not by the Pope."
So, was Jesus not the Prince of Peace when he turned over the tables of the money changers?
I don't find any place in scripture that says it is wrong for God's people to go to war in the name of God or Christ. I do find scriptures that refer to being lead by the Holy Spirit. And, I do find that God's instruction to Israel in war was to utterly destroy the pagan nations that were an abomination.
If you do not believe that Islam and the Muslim religion is an abomination, I have some ocean beach property in Arizona I will sell your really cheap. Christians should not apologize for anything.
Posted by: Mr. Fox | January 11, 2008 10:06 AM
You are either putting words in my mouth or need to re-read my post. I do not have an issue with you being an environmentalist if that tickles your fancy.
Ummmm, Mr. Fox, you wrote this earlier:
The concept of finding common ground with Mulsims, environmentalists and gays is, at best, foolish and dangerous. "Christians" that embrace this sort of liberal, new age, watered-down perversion of the gospel come across as either sick or insane.
I didn't ready you wrong, and I'm certainly not putting words in your mouth. This is offensive, judgmental, and furthermmore, completely wrong. For one thing, I am an environmentalist precisely because of the gospel.
So, was Jesus not the Prince of Peace when he turned over the tables of the money changers?
That wasn't my point. I said the Church has no authority from God to wage war as the Church. This is "two kingdoms" theology. Look that term up in your directory of Lutheran theology if you are unfamiliar with it. So long as the present age remains, the task of waging war, when necessary, is the task of the rulers of the earthly kingdoms, not the responsibility of Christ's kingdom.
And of course that does not touch on the question of whether the Crusades met just war criteria or not. I won't take up that issue here.
You are free to disagree with efforts between Muslims and Christians to reach out to each other and learn how to live in peace. But don't you dare say that Chrstians who engage in that work have apostosized.
And no I don't believe that Islam is an abomination, ocenfront property in Arizona notwithstanding. Do you know any Muslims? Have you discussed their beliefs? Have you read the Qur'an, especially the last thirty Suras or so? If you have not done those things at least, you have no valid basis for your opinions about Islam. And by saying what I am saying about Islam, I am not apologizing for anything, certainly not the foundational truths of Christianity.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | January 11, 2008 10:27 AM
"Father forgive them, they know not what they do,"
is one of the Seven Last Words uttered by Our Lord as he hung on the cross. As he suffered, he offered a profound prayer for those who had harmed him.
If we cannot reconcile with our fellows we cannot expect to be reconciled with Our Heavenly Father. Each time we recite the OUR FATHER we renew an agreement, affirm that we understand what forgiveness is all about. That forgiveness we ask for, we agree not to expect unless we also have forgiven those who harmed us.
Violence begets violence. The sword our Lord uses is his holy word. If we follow Christ we are compelled to love God with our entire being, love our neighbor with the same intensity that we love ourselves, and practice social justice.
In order to have peace, we must practice peace.
Christianity is a way of life.
Renetta Land
Always know how loved and blessed you are.
Miracles happen every day, expect them.
One world one people one, the children of God
Posted by: Renetta A Hunter Land | January 11, 2008 10:36 AM
"If you do not believe that Islam and the Muslim religion is an abomination, I have some ocean beach property in Arizona I will sell your really cheap. Christians should not apologize for anything."
You are ignoring the whole concept of corporate forgiveness which can be found in both the old and new testament. We should apologize because the Christians back then were not listening to the Holy Spirit they were listening to greed and power. There were several Christian armies that committed horrible massacres. King Saladin did not do that. Yet people rarely even ackowledge how brutal our efforts were during the crusades. If we have any integrity and live the message of reconcilation we must apologize but does that matter to you?
p
Posted by: payshun | January 11, 2008 12:05 PM
Thank you Brian for a well reasoned and Humble Gospel resonse.
Peace be with you,
Posted by: Shaun | January 11, 2008 12:46 PM
The concept of finding common ground with Mulsims, environmentalists and gays is, at best, foolish and dangerous. "Christians" that embrace this sort of liberal, new age, watered-down perversion of the gospel come across as either sick or insane.
That kind of statement represents the very antithesis of the Gospel and exactly what we're trying to avoid; it goes right back to the very "culture wars" that have hurt our evangelism efforts in this country. If we believe the "Good News," we have to live it in our own lives and corporately in the church.
I don't find any place in scripture that says it is wrong for God's people to go to war in the name of God or Christ. I do find scriptures that refer to being lead by the Holy Spirit. And, I do find that God's instruction to Israel in war was to utterly destroy the pagan nations that were an abomination.
That was a slightly different situation -- God promised that specific geographic land to Israel, and while they did have to fight for it doing so was about ridding that part of the world of spiritual pollution. Furthermore, His plan was the bless the whole world through Israel, which didn't hold up its end of the deal.
We Christians, on the other hand, have no specific place that is "ours"; we are commanded simply to "make disciples" etc.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 11, 2008 12:51 PM
"Christ did not preach against war."
Matthew 26:52
Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
"He did not teach tolerance for sin,"
Matthew 5:39
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
"The Apostle Paul spoke about those that add to or take away from the Gospel as being in danger of judgment."
This is true- read your words! You can not use the words of Paul to omit the words of Christ- that is hypocrisy.
With all due respect- exactly what doctrine are you reading?
Elizabeth Daniele
Posted by: Elizabeth Daniele | January 11, 2008 2:41 PM
At the sake of putting myself on some sort of chopping block....just a few reflections from a neighbour to the north (that's Canada)
I am still at a loss as to how this became a holy war between Christians and Muslims. The last time I checked it was your beloved President that first mentioned the idea of a holy type crusade against evil. Just in case people missed it...the assault from outside was on an economic centre (World Trade Centre) and not what could be considered a Christian centre (if there be such a thing).
Here is a distant but similar example....in 1812 your country invaded mine (similar to the economic exploitation of countries abroad by the United States...sorry for the harsh truth). After a number of years of fighting we (Canadians) had enough....went into your capital and burned down a few key buildings (that's where the White House got it's name). Now...the fall out of that was not pronouncements that we were godless, attacking the fabric of Christianity with our Canadian theology and evil. What happened was that a dialogue was started and peace eventually ensued.
One last thing....those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I personally am an advocate of anything that brings peace....be that talking to religious leaders....apologizing for obvious wrongs committed years ago....whatever will set the right ground for peace. It seems to be lost in all the rhetoric that people are dying....and I don't just mean Americans.
All good things
Ender
Posted by: Ender | January 11, 2008 4:58 PM
"I find it highly ironic that you would call for McLaren to respond to criticisms in an honest way when the way you describe the progressive Christian view of Islam is such an inaccurate portrayal."
What other conclusion can I draw when potential common ground has been forfeited for reasons that are otherwise inexplicable? Do you have any evidence that the authors of this letter, or the Christian left at large, considered the inclusion of the issues I mention?
I highly doubt that they did. So what does that say about what they assume of Muslims? What does it say to you?
Posted by: kevin s. | January 11, 2008 6:56 PM
"What other conclusion can I draw when potential common ground has been forfeited for reasons that are otherwise inexplicable? Do you have any evidence that the authors of this letter, or the Christian left at large, considered the inclusion of the issues I mention?" Kevin S.
I have been in a liberal, progressive church that went to pray in a Mosque with Muslims to foster mutual understanding. Some of the women of the church where I attended did not want to go to the Mosque because of the way women are treated in Muslim countries and they did not go. The bottom line is that every member of that church had a very realistic view of the differences between their progressive Christian world persective and the Islamic world view. But there was one thing that was more important to them- seeking peace and a common ground for understanding. I commend them for this and am proud to be a part of that tradition. We don't have to agree with everything another person is doing to seek peace with them.
Posted by: JamesMartin | January 11, 2008 10:27 PM
The war against Islam is a holy war. One Islam has declared time and time again. Most recently, it was 9-11. Jesus' teaching about turning the other cheek had to do with the harshness of living under The Law. Jesus was advocating forgiveness instead of seeking vengeance. It had nothing to do with the subject of one nation going to war against another.
Put that teaching in context and it is apparent it was a dynamic new way of looking at things. It was not acceptable to divorce your wife for burning the biscuits. "Eye for an eye" was pointing out the harshness of the day, where it would be common to take a life in exchange for an eye. Taking an eye for an eye was equitable, but taking a life for an eye was not.
Since the subject of the Abrahamic promises came up, look to the Book of Genesis. God promised Abraham and his descendants, "Those who curse you will be cursed, those who bless you will be blessed."
The hatred of Muslims for non-Muslims goes back to the days of Abraham. The Jews received the blessing through the lineage of Abraham and Sarah, not Sarah's handmaiden that bore Abraham a son out of unbelief.
Posted by: Mr. Fox | January 12, 2008 12:15 AM
I agree with things posted here by Fox. We are supposed to do all things as unto the Lord. We do not receive inspiration and authority to do most of the things we do. I can't find any scriptures that says Christians do not have permission or where they are forbidden to declare war in the name of Jesus or God. I also don't find no Bible verses that teaches that war is wrong. People also need to start using the word of God to reconcile the right way. Christianity and Islam cain't be reconciled because they were never related or tied to each other. Muslims certainly can be converted to Christianity and that's what we are supposed to do is try to convert them. Muslims cannot be converted unless they renounce their heathen beliefs and repent of their wickedness for worship of allah. If they don't do that there is nothing much to talk about. There only wIf they would mind their own business and stop stirring up so much hate and discontent against people that do not believe like they do the world would be a whole lot safer and happier. You can't change people that don't want to be changed. Based on his reply to the dude that got upset about environmentalists Fox doesn't seem to have a problem with people taking care of the planet. It seems his original comment was talking about extremists. I think a lot of people that call themselves environmentalist practice that as religion.
Posted by: Jon | January 12, 2008 5:19 AM
Jon wrote:
Fox doesn't seem to have a problem with people taking care of the planet. It seems his original comment was talking about extremists.
I'm "the dude that got upset about environmentalists". If Fox was talking about extremists, it most certainly didn't come across in what he wrote, which, once again, was:
The concept of finding common ground with Mulsims, environmentalists and gays is, at best, foolish and dangerous. "Christians" that embrace this sort of liberal, new age, watered-down perversion of the gospel come across as either sick or insane.
Please not that Fox doesn't use the word "extremist" or any other qualifier. He is clearly saying that I am being foolish and dangerous because I identify with environmentalists. Can you or anyone honestly interpret this any other way? To be sure, Fox later tried (rather poorly in my estimation) to qualify what he perhaps thought he was saying.
Fox certainly didn't apologize for his offending statement. Wouldn't you have been offended by this if you identified yourself this way? Why are you trying to defend it?
Christianity and Islam can't be reconciled because they were never related or tied to each other...Muslims cannot be converted unless they renounce their heathen beliefs and repent of their wickedness...
You betray your total ignorance of Islam here. I won't say any more.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | January 12, 2008 12:33 PM
For the record, Don, let me say I am sorry that I offended you by my poor choice in words. I was, in fact, referring to "religious" or extremist environmentalists and not ordinary people that have an interest in taking care of the planet we inhabit. I was unclear in my original statement and your sensitivity toward the environment was bruised by my omission of reference to extremists.
As it shows in my posts, I am disgusted by Christianity that does not take a stand against evil, no matter what form evil decides to show itself. That evil can take the form of forced tolerance for pagan religion and homosexuality, (by making it a hate crime for us to say anything against them,) environmentalism, secular humanism, socialism, wealth redistribution, gun control or any other special interest that seeks to force its views on society. Christians have become entirely too soft. We have a duty to resist and speak out against those things and not allow them to be forced on us.
Because Christians have been panty-waists, we have legalized abortion, thrown God and prayer out of schools, teach evolution but not creationism, teach that premarital sex and homosexuality are acceptable lifestyles and allowed the "culture" of foreign nations to ruin our nation, by obscuring the significance of our own nation, the American culture and the Christian foundation it was built upon.
The alarming degree to which environmentalism has infected society in this country through our public education system and liberal news media, and is running rampant in other countries, is a huge concern for many Americans, whether they call themselves Christians or something else.
Jon does make an excellent point about converting Muslims. Our charge from Christ is to spread the Gospel across the globe. The purpose is to spread (preach) the Gospel and lead people to Christ, not to become friends with those that reject the Gospel. Salvation through faith in Christ does require an ear that will hear and repentance. If they (Muslims) refuse to listen and receive the Gospel and repent from their wickedness, then our job is done.
Jesus associated with the greatest of sinners for the purpose of changing their hearts and minds. He did not allow Himself to become unequally yoked in relationship with those who rejected His message. I do not see any scriptural basis for Christians to do that. In fact, Jesus resisted those that would not receive His message, and that is how His destiny was ultimately fulfilled in his crucifixion and resurrection.
For those that resist the message of Christ, whether they be extremist Muslims, extremist environmentalists, extremist gay activists or what have you, there can be no common ground or basis for dialogue. There is nothing, other than the fact that they are members of the human race, that justifies being unequally yoked with unbelievers for the sake of maintaining peace.
There can be no peace with them because, by their very nature, they are opposed to it. They want it their way and leave no options conducive to peace. To clarify, my use of the word peace is more in reference to their insistence upon imposing their way of thinking and their agenda on society and not necessarily referring to waging warfare in a military sense.
I am not advocating that Christians become extremists in the sense of spreading the Gospel through force, or waging war against Islam on the basis that they are not Christian. I am a strong advocate of waging war against and eradicating (through use of military force and armaments) all Islamic terrorists that seek to do the same to us (America, Israel and other nations with a Western mentality) whom they consider 'infidels'. Trying to negotiate or become friendly with them is, in my opinion, foolish and dangerous.
In this abstract sense, we are waging a spiritual battle and many of our fine soldiers are waging physical warfare "in the name of Christ or YHWH" against pagans that worship the false god Allah.
Posted by: Mr. Fox | January 12, 2008 2:36 PM
"Jesus' teaching about turning the other cheek had to do with the harshness of living under The Law. Jesus was advocating forgiveness instead of seeking vengeance. It had nothing to do with the subject of one nation going to war against another. Put that teaching in context and it is apparent it was a dynamic new way of looking at things. It was not acceptable to divorce your wife for burning the biscuits. "Eye for an eye" was pointing out the harshness of the day, where it would be common to take a life in exchange for an eye. Taking an eye for an eye was equitable, but taking a life for an eye was not."
Creative thinking, but what do you do with-
Matthew 26:47-52
50 Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus and took him. And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear. Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
And,
Matthew 5:43-46
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
In Christ's name, however do we Love our enemy- if we are killing them? How further from Christ can we be?
And God certainly blessed Hagar's son Ishmael, son of Abraham.
Genesis 17:20
And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
God made a promise with Abraham and his descendants. (God gave blessings to the Jews.) [Genesis 15:18-21]
God blessed Ishmael, son of Abraham. (God gave blessings to the Arab nations.) [Genesis 17:20]
Jesus, God’s son, had devout followers. (God gave blessings to the Christians.) [John 2:22]
Jesus, the Messiah, ate and drank with the Samarians. (God gave blessings to the non-believers of above.) [John 4:9]
Remission of sins is offered to all- until our last breath, whether we accept it or not. Which is why Christ taught to Love our enemies.
Through the blood of Christ- a new gift was offered, in an already existing plan that was known from the beginning, to all. This is
how God is perfect- therefore balanced. And it is why Christ died on a cross- and did not choose war by spilling blood. And, yet- He
could have so easily. He was God's son! At the very least, should we not try to live by His example? Didn't the covenant to the Jews
exist then? If so, then why didn't Jesus tell them to pick up the sword against those that occupied them, the Romans? We want to take
it upon ourselves to validate something today that even God's son wouldn't then! How is that not hypocrisy and arrogant? From his
sacrifice, no longer would humankind be able to kill in the name of God- it would have be hypocrisy. And God's perfection and balance
is again revealed through defeating satan- only to have him "loosed" a thousand years later. Why? Because God is perfect and balanced.
As God speaks to us- so can satan. But neither will force us. Through free-will we choose and are responsible. We can not hide behind group status. At the end of our physical lives, He will, indeed, meet us in the clouds and call us out individually.
Revelation 20:3
And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
God is real.
His Word absolute.
Paradise will always be paradise. But how?
Void of real repentance, how could any warmonger ever get into Heaven?
How is that possible?
How could they be trusted? Hasn't God gone through this before?
And doesn't God know all?
So how did the worth of humankind become so little?
Revelation 6:6
And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.
God can neither be boxed, nor owned by any one or two groups. He created us all. He did not bless one and the rest of his creation became filler. From that, whether we follow him is up to us. We decide- as it should be.
Peace,
Elizabeth Daniele
Posted by: Elizabeth Daniele | January 12, 2008 3:02 PM
Also you write-
"Jesus' teaching about turning the other cheek had to do with
the harshness of living under The Law. Jesus was advocating
forgiveness instead of seeking vengeance. It had nothing to do
with the subject of one nation going to war against another."
If you say that Christ was advocating forgiveness instead of
seeking vengeance- then how could that not possibly extend
to war in God's name? Christ didn't destroy the "law" He fulfilled it.
Matthew 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets:
I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Forgive me, but that doesn't even make sense. And you have me
completely lost on the "biscuit" reference.
Peace and blessings to you,
Elizabeth Daniele
Posted by: Elizabeth Daniele | January 12, 2008 4:09 PM
Mr. Fox,
A few things:
In what way is environmentalism not Christian? How does the current wasteful, materialistic, polluting society we live in where we throw everything into landfills, take energy for granted, consume, consume, and consume some more all for the sake of the almighty buck and worship of the economy and capitalism show any love, respect, or thankfulness for God's creation?
With respect to your long litany of the ungodly, including environmentalists, where did Jesus present such a list? Jesus didn't seemed to be concerned about getting His hands dirty by associating and spending time with the people of His day who were on the list of the ungodly. He also didn't sit back and throw labels at people. It's comfortable and easy to do that, because it simplifies things so we don't have to think so much, but it isn't in any way Christ-like.
"For those that resist the message of Christ, whether they be extremist Muslims, extremist environmentalists, extremist gay activists or what have you, there can be no common ground or basis for dialogue. "
Let me take this to its natural conclusion. For those that resist the message of Christ, whether they be Democrats or Republicans, whether they have broken the law or never even taken a cookie out of the cookie jar withour asking, whether they are Charles Manson or Mary Poppins, there can be no common ground or basis for dialogue. In other words, what you are saying is that Christians should never interact with anyone who is non-Christian. You are advocating an isolationist viewpoint, which is wholly unfounded in Scripture. We are to be salt and light, the city on the hill, we are to let our lights shine before men, to be in the world but not of it. Meaning, we are to function in relations with the world but not fall into the sins of the world. We are to love those who are in the world sacrificially and humbly as Christ did. How can we influence people if we can't show Christ's love to them? If all we ever do is TELL them the Gospel without SHOWING them the Gospel, then we aren't fulfilling Christ's mandate or following in His footsteps. He not only told, but He DEMONSTRATED what it meant to follow Him--and He did it in love without passing harsh judgement on then--infuriating the religious leaders. He saw through the sin to the need and loved the person before He showed them the way. Taking His actions as our example for how to function in the world, what should we be doing? If we are Christ's imitators, what actions should we be performing? To answer that, you must know and understand what Christ did. Certainly working for peaceful dialogue among all non-Christians, including Muslims, rather than rejecting them on the basis of their beliefs is not showing Christ's love. If you can't learn to dialogue with Muslims because they reject Christ, then with whom do you dialogue with? Do you only speak to, work with, or do business with those who profess Christ?
"Jesus associated with the greatest of sinners for the purpose of changing their hearts and minds."
He associated with the greatest of sinners because they were the ones who were most rejected by society. He was turning human values on its ear. Who did the people of his day value the most, and who do the people of our day value the most? The rich, the powerful, the influential. In every part of his message, He turned that value system upside down. He brought His salvation first to those who deserved it the least, not only to show how that His salvation can extend to the deepest of our sins, but to show that He valued those who society had cast out and valued the least.
"In fact, Jesus resisted those that would not receive His message, and that is how His destiny was ultimately fulfilled in his crucifixion and resurrection."
And who was it Jesus resisted? Muslims? I don't see that in Scripture. He resisted the Pharisees and religious leaders. Was it because they already had salvation? No, it was because they thought they had salvation and didn't know how much they needed Him, and they needed Him every bit as much as the "least of these" needed Him. They were blind to their own nakedness. They were also very upset that he did not give them the respect they thought they had earned, but treated the poor, lepers, prostitutes, and tax collectors as people who had worth and value--A group of people they despised and rejected.
We can't possibly hope to witness to Muslims, or any other people, if we can't first demonstrate Christ's sacrifical love for them. We need to show, not tell, the story of salvation before we can even hope that anyone will accept it.
Posted by: squeaky | January 12, 2008 4:10 PM
Elizabeth, Don and Squeaky:
Although it may not be your intent, if seems like you are putting God in a box by your post that seeks to advance personal views over those held by others. You took numerous scriptures out of context to make it fit a scenario other than the one it which it is found. Fox is not a creative thinker, he is merely using scripture in the context it was intended and not using Jesus' words to support something that never entered Jesus mind at the time he said it.
This is an easy trap for Christians to fall into, and one we should avoid. If I take all you said on face value, I would walk away with the impression you think everyone will be saved, even those that do not repent and receive Christ on the basis that Christ died for the remission of all sin.
It is very dangerous to take any scripture that does not give a direct and unmistakable universally applicable, standalone message and attempt to apply it as a mission statement that we all have to follow to be considered theologically sound.
The 10 Commandments stand on their own. Jesus made many statements that stand on their own, but many others were in direct response to a specific set of circumstances and cannot be applied holistically in all circumstances.
The eye for an eye thing was put in a very context by this Fox guy. Jesus' comment about living and dying by the sword was directed to the disciple with Him. Jesus was ready for His destiny to be fulfilled and that was interference. Love your neighbor as yourself and love your enemies are both things Jesus said. While they are good rules to live by and a way to avoid conflicts, you need to qualify what Jesus meant by "neighbor" or "enemy" and the context in which he made those statements must be considered. None of those scriptures can be used effectively in an argument against war or to advocate tolerance of behaviors most people find objectionable.
Even though he is not the most eloquent writer on the BeliefNet blog, if you combine all of the content from the posts that this guy named Fox wrote, it is obvious he holds the views that most born-again Christians in America do, and as do very many ordinary Americans do that do not hold themselves out as being Christian. It is, in fact, a majority view. It is also theologically sound.
I for one, and it appears Jon also, instantly knew what Fox was speaking about because we share his views and it was not necessary for him to offer up a lot of extra words of explanation or justification because we identified with him.
These Christian blogs tend to bring out the worst that Church World has to offer society, at least in outward appearance. With some of its members on the theological fringe out to make a point and do whatever they feel they need to do with pieces of scripture to make a fellow Believer look bad, is it any wonder some folks do not want any part of Church World? You guys bashing Fox, and even Jon for agreeing with him, is exactly the sort of thing holding back the Church and the effective delivery of the true Gospel.
Selah.
Shalom.
Posted by: Elias | January 12, 2008 4:18 PM
"The 10 Commandments stand on their own. Jesus made many statements that stand on their own, but many others were in direct response to a specific set of circumstances and cannot be applied holistically in all circumstances."
Dear Elias,
Does not Love your enemy stand on its own, as well?
Peace,
Elizabeth Daniele
Posted by: Elizabeth Daniele | January 12, 2008 4:31 PM
Dear Elias,
Jesus didn't just say to Love your enemies- He went into depth with it.
Matthew 5:44
44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Peace,
Elizabeth Daniele
Posted by: Elizabeth Daniele | January 12, 2008 4:48 PM
"Does not Love your enemy stand on its own, as well?"
No, it doesn't. It does make sense in that it is a complete sentence and a saying worthy of our attention. But, not in the sense that it is not in context of the speech Jesus was delivering.
If I take "Jesus wept." and ask if that stands on its own, we could all agree that it does. Although only two words, it is a complete sentence. If I use that same scripture as a basis to teach that frequent or incessant weeping is a requirement for living a Christian life, we would (hopefully) have a lot of disagreement.
I am oversimplifying this on purpose to make a point. Well meaning Christians tend to go out on a limb to build doctrines and dogma upon snippets of scripture and pronounce it as "thus sayeth the Lord". That's both wrong and dangerous. It's also very common, as the vast majority of the posts on this thread proves very clearly.
So, some people are passionate about the environment. Some are passionate about not having war. Some are passionate about reaching out to Muslims so we can all get along, in peace, without an emphasis on converting them. Some are passionate about converting Muslim to Christianity. None of those are bad, per se. In fact, I think we could all agree they are noble to various extents. At the end of the day I cannot build a Church on any of it. If I do, it's a church founded on heresy and has the potential to become a cult.
Pehaps my Jewish heritage, former Israeli citizenship and fairly recent conversion to Christianity has something to do with how I interpret scripture. Although we surely have some areas of difference, Mr. Fox has some very sound and Godly insight in my humble opinion, and his theological soundness is easily recognizable by someone with a Jewish background.
Jews have been hated throughout history, and we have a unique first-hand understanding of the brutality of Islam that most Americans simply cannot understand. Although it seems most unlikely that Fox is of Jewish descent, his views on domesticating animals [settle down - this is a metaphoric comment, not a hate comment] are both practical and wise.
Now, can we all take a deep breath and move on?
Shalom.
Posted by: Elias | January 12, 2008 5:14 PM
Elias,
I have been a Christian for over 20 years, and my views do not in the least veer away from the fundamentalist churches I attended for much of that time. In fact, my views have, in large part, come out of that fundamentalist teaching. My churches all support missionaries who live in communities worldwide, demonstrating Christ's love in word and deed. I dare say none of my pastors or church leaders would disagree with or find any heresy in my statements. Please show me how my statements about Christ's teaching and His love, humility, and sacrifice for the lost veer from your interpretation of Scripture. Specifically, how do my comments lead you to this interpretation?
"If I take all you said on face value, I would walk away with the impression you think everyone will be saved"
By the way--how did I, or any of us, bash Fox? Challenging his views is not the same as bashing him, and I see no bashing done by Eileen, Don, or myself.
Posted by: squeaky | January 12, 2008 5:16 PM
"At the end of the day I cannot build a Church on any of it."
Who said anything about building a church on any of these things? Surely if we did, it would be idolatry. No one suggested that, to my knowledge. But as a Christian, and out of my love of God, I see the importance of loving others, even those with whom I would disagree.
"Jews have been hated throughout history, and we have a unique first-hand understanding of the brutality of Islam that most Americans simply cannot understand."
I have no doubt that you do have important insights into just that. That I don't question. However, the same could be said about the particular brutality of the Romans during Jesus and Paul's day, and yet neither of them advocated that they were beyond forgiveness and not worthy of the Gospel of salvation.
"Although it seems most unlikely that Fox is of Jewish descent, his views on domesticating animals [settle down - this is a metaphoric comment, not a hate comment] are both practical and wise."
Sorry--it's hard to see it as a metaphorical comment. Like it or not, that comment reveals a sense of superiority. It comes down to this--do you strive to love the Muslim people as Christ loved them?
You seem to dismiss that Christ told us to love our enemies as a statement taken out of context. And yet, the context of the entire Gospel shows Christ doing just that. He loved His enemies and laid down His life for them. Who are His enemies? Every single one of us--we are all enemies of the Gospel. But while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Christ showed us by His very actions that we are to love our enemies because He Himself did that very thing.
And certainly the start of the process of showing Christ's love to Muslims is laying down our hatred and distrust and prejudice and building bridges and avenues and relationships founded on respect and trust. Only then can we hope to show them the true meaning of the Gospel of Salvation. This is not a new or unusual view of witnessing. Most missionaries would advocate the same approach.
Posted by: squeaky | January 12, 2008 5:45 PM
Does not Love your enemies stand on its own, as well?
"No, it doesn't."
How is that? What else can one possibly get from that?
If Christ wanted us to spill blood in God's name, then why
didn't He say so? Or His apostles and disciples who were martyrs? Do you think they couldn't have formed an army? How was it wrong for them, but not for us?
Peace,
Elizabeth Daniele
Posted by: Elizabeth Daniele | January 12, 2008 5:49 PM
As it shows in my posts, I am disgusted by Christianity that does not take a stand against evil, no matter what form evil decides to show itself. That evil can take the form of forced tolerance for pagan religion and homosexuality, (by making it a hate crime for us to say anything against them,) environmentalism, secular humanism, socialism, wealth redistribution, gun control or any other special interest that seeks to force its views on society. Christians have become entirely too soft. We have a duty to resist and speak out against those things and not allow them to be forced on us.
What about racism, economic injustice (which leads to all kinds of social problems) or greed, all of which also are condemned in Scripture but that the religious right has consistently ignored?
Jews have been hated throughout history, and we have a unique first-hand understanding of the brutality of Islam that most Americans simply cannot understand.
According to my study of history, that's only a fairly recent development with Muslims and only because Jews forced Palestinian Arabs out of their very homes when modern Israel was created.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 12, 2008 6:09 PM
"According to my study of history, that's only a fairly recent development with Muslims and only because Jews forced Palestinian Arabs out of their very homes when modern Israel was created."
So, the Jews crucified Jesus. I suppose that we can excuse Adolf Hitler as being justified in his actions, but that would not only be wrong but very unpopular. But, it's the same way of thinking albeit not nearly as extreme.
This sort of debating could go on without end, guys. Punching holes in each other's views is fun for a while, then someone eventually gets their feeling hurt.
Let's agree to disagree on some of this stuff. A few things we can all agree on:
1. The Divine inspiration and inerrancy of God's
Word. His Word is Holy and all His ways are
just.
2. Christ is the resurrected only begotten Son of
God.
3. Christ's shed blood is a covering for the
sins of those that receive Him.
4. Faith in Christ and his completed work of
redemption is the only way to God the Father.
5. Anything added to or taken away from the above
is will do nothing to justify any man on the
day they stand before God and give an account
for their life.
Everyone have a pleasant weekend. See you on the next blog.
Blessings!
Posted by: Mr. Fox | January 12, 2008 6:35 PM
Some are passionate about reaching out to Muslims so we can all get along, in peace, without an emphasis on converting them.
Um, Elias, you are reading an awful lot into what Mr. McClaren and others have been saying here. Since these posts by Brian McClaren are related to the 138 Islamic leaders' call for Muslim-Christian dialogue, the topic at hand isn't conversion of Muslims per se, so naturally we aren't emphsizing it. But does that mean the topic is not in our minds?
And isn't the chance to dialogue with Muslims also a possible opportunity that the Holy Spirit can use as an opening for sharing the Gospel?
I strongly suggest you read the posting from Tony Dickinson (on January 3 at 6:49 PM), which appears in the "Mourning Benazir Bhutto" post from earlier this month (click on the archive above, January 2008). You will read there the story of Francis of Assisi and his encounter with the Sultan of Egypt during one of the Crusades. Francis set the tone for what I believe to be a proper approach to sharing the Gospel, which includes refusing to trash Islamic beliefs or bad-mouth the prophet Muhammad, something that several people who have posted here would do well to take note of. By the way, Francis is an excellent role model for how NOT to put God in a box, in many ways.
By the way--how did I, or any of us, bash Fox? Challenging his views is not the same as bashing him, and I see no bashing done by Eileen, Don, or myself.
Elias, if I had been bashing Mr. Fox, you surely would have known it! But I try to keep my comments focused on the content of what is written, not on personalities. Not that I'm always successful
Mr Fox, I accept your apology. I hope you keep reading this blog!
Peace,
Posted by: Don | January 12, 2008 7:13 PM
Even though he is not the most eloquent writer on the BeliefNet blog, if you combine all of the content from the posts that this guy named Fox wrote, it is obvious he holds the views that most born-again Christians in America do, and as do very many ordinary Americans do that do not hold themselves out as being Christian. It is, in fact, a majority view. It is also theologically sound.
Posted by: Elias | January 12, 2008 4:18 PM
Let's agree to disagree on some of this stuff. A few things we can all agree on:
1. The Divine inspiration and inerrancy of God's
Word. His Word is Holy and all His ways are
just. Mr. Fox
Elias, and Mr. Fox, respectfully, I'd like to encourage you to read some pre-American theology, for your post is fraught with the fallacy that a popular British cum American spin on theology (dispensationalism and, later, American fundamentalism) is the beginning/ending of the theological discussion. In fact, it is a relatively recent entry to the game and, in keeping with established principle of historical inquiry, deserves the critical eye of a broader perspective.
For instance, I note Mr. Fox that you conflate the notion of Biblical inspiration with inerrancy. I believe that if you were to expand your inquiry in that regard beyond the writings of American dispensationalists/fundamentalists you would soon see that the notion of inerrancy as propogated by same is somewhat novel in historical theology circles. Further, I trust you are conversant with the oft-quoted criticism that points 1 and 5 of your theological mantra point in the direction of circular reasoning.
Lastly, while I am not suggesting I am in complete disagreement with all that you assert, you should be aware that your posts do smack of the dogmatism, fear and absolute certainty (to identify only some of the the kinder accusations) that discredits the fundamentalist perspective in the minds of many.
Posted by: canucklehead | January 12, 2008 7:31 PM
This conversation may challenge some of our 'frustration levels' but thanks to the recent commenters who have at least tried to express their viewpoints without going into attack mode. There is a blessing to be had through the practice of good dialogue. How can the Body of Christ live without nurturing dialogue? How can each bring their giftedness and place in the journey into relationship with each where edification and sharpening can occur without it?
Maybe when we encounter persons with views we consider 'dead wrong' our task is not to be 'dead right.' Maybe God's Spirit is at work.
Listen. Can you hear the wind?
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 13, 2008 9:35 AM
I finally read the FOTF post to which Mr. McLaren responded. I was a bit surprised in that it seemed a rather tepid report of two persons' critical comments about the "Christian Response" to the Muslim overture; that if anything seems to be playing out a Dobson-NAE conflict. To which I say, "Dr Dobson and NAE. Would you please meet and discuss your differences as part of Christ's family; in humble submission to the Lord?"
And to Sojo, Brian McLaren, Wallis: Please do not try to mobilize my voice to counter other Christian leaders, until you have, with all due Christian diligence, attempted to work out your relationships and conflicting views face to face.
You want to influece Condi Rice in another post to counter mobilization by another Christian leader. In this post you want to counter FOTF's rather tepid criticism.
When you have conflict with other leaders and ask for me to engage in the conflict--you frankly ask for me to make your conflict, my business. Some of us are likely being asked by other Christian leaders to conflict with you.
How are we going to be an instrument of God's peace as a Body if leaders seek to put their constituents in conflict with each other??
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 13, 2008 9:47 AM
Letjustice:
Excellent points. Why do Christian leaders make their disagreements public?
But thinking off the top of my head:
In this case, however, the question should be asked of FOF before asking McClaren, because it was Dobson's organization that first made the disagreement public (by posting it on their Citizen Link Web site, as well as, no doubt, Citizen Link's newsletter). FOF also did the same thing with their other disagreement with the NAE over global warming.
And this situation is rooted in the very origin and nature of the dialogue itself: 138 Islamic leaders published their invitation rather than merely sending it privately to their audience (it first appeared, I seem to recall, in the Washington Post). Since it was from the beginning a public request/invitation, those Christian leaders who were inclined to respond positively also did so in public, naturally enough. I recall the Presiding Bishop of my denomination (ELCA) responding in the form of a news release. Other leaders did the same, including of course the Yale signatories. This has been a public dialogue from the beginning.
So the question is, is FOF (and Sojo's response to FOF) really doing this because they want to engage their constituents in the conflict, or because they believe that, since this conversation has been going on in public from the beginning, it is only natural that they should feel it's appropriate to add their piece to the conversation--whether positive or negative--in public as well.
I would like to see McClaren meet with FOF officials. I would like FOF to meet with the some of the Yale signatories, but I wonder whether all the parties themselves would want that to happen. It's a fine line and a tough call, I think, at least in this case, to know when to keep a disagreement private and when not to.
I'd better stop rambling. I don't know whether I've said anything useful or not.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | January 13, 2008 12:55 PM
"The bottom line is that every member of that church had a very realistic view of the differences between their progressive Christian world persective and the Islamic world view."
Which is the point of the criticism from Mohler. This is not common ground between Christians and Muslims. This is common ground between progressive Christianity and Islam. You should expect, therefore, that there will be criticism from conservative theological circles who were inherently excluded by an effort that portends to speak on behalf of Christians.
"For instance, I note Mr. Fox that you conflate the notion of Biblical inspiration with inerrancy."
And you conflate fundmentalism with dispensationalism, and poison the well by stating that because those movements hold to inerrancy, inerrancy must somehow be suspect. That "many" people level a criticism is not an argument on behalf of that criticism.
But yes, Mr. Fox, you will find that inerrancy and substitutionary atonement are minority viewpoints here (though I agree with them).
Posted by: kevin s. | January 13, 2008 3:25 PM
"But yes, Mr. Fox, you will find that inerrancy and substitutionary atonement are minority viewpoints here (though I agree with them)."
Yes, Kevin. So I have discovered.
Posted by: Mr. Fox | January 13, 2008 3:45 PM
This is common ground between progressive Christianity and Islam. You should expect, therefore, that there will be criticism from conservative theological circles who were inherently excluded by an effort that portends to speak on behalf of Christians.
Who is being excluded? Only those who are excluding themselves on the basis of the proposition that we have no common ground whatever with Islam. A proposition that many of us believe is simply not true.
And you conflate fundmentalism with dispensationalism, and poison the well by stating that because those movements hold to inerrancy, inerrancy must somehow be suspect. That "many" people level a criticism is not an argument on behalf of that criticism.
Well, not exactly. You are correct that dispenationalism and fundamentalism are not identical (though they do often overlap). But if you read Canucklehead carefully, you would note that his main theme is the fact that inerrancy as believed and taught by fundamentalists and/or dispensationalists is a rather novel concept, given the 2,000-year history of Christian theology.
Historically, novel theological ideas were treated with suspicion, of course. But in the case of inerrancy, the suspicion arises because of its relative novelty, not because it is held by dispensationalists and/or fundamentalists. (It's worth noting that some conservative Christians that hold to inerrancy are neither dispensationalist nor fundamentalist--at least in the historical understanding of that term. The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod is a case in point.)
I would simply add that novelty alone doesn't discredit the doctrine, but because of its relative novelty, inerrancy should receive more scrutiny, which by the way was what Canucklehead was suggesting in the first place.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | January 13, 2008 3:49 PM
Except for ending slavery, fascism, Nazism, and Communism, War has never solved anything.
Posted by: Sempi Fi | January 13, 2008 4:24 PM
If the infallibility or inerrancy of scripture is not accepted as a given, the entire structure upon which Judaism and genuine Christianity is built crumbles. At this point, both Judaism and Christianity become as completely irrelevant as any other religion and we should all start doing whatever feels good as descendants of primates instead of wasting our wild oat seeds by following Christ.
If God's Word is deemed fallible and errant, it becomes a worthless product of human fabrication... the equivalent of worthless dribble, such as the Book of Mormon or the Qur'an; authored through the hallucination and regurgitations of mad men, the ramblings of the feeble and error-prone wisdom of the human mind.
Posted by: Mr. Fox | January 13, 2008 4:51 PM
Mr Fox:
Christians for over 1,800 years did not feel they needed to articulate or describe the authority of Scripture by using the terms "inerrant" and "infallible." Were they wrong? Did the entire structure of Christianity crumble during those 1,800 years? What about the Reformers, for whom the idea that the "original autograph manuscripts" of the New Testament were "without error" would have been a novelty, to say the least?
Christians for most of history didn't feel they needed such doctrines, because the authority of Scripture was self-evident. The fact that the churches read these books in worship day after day, week after week, was enough to secure their place of authority.
It seems to many Christians today that the doctrines of inerrancy and infallibility are themselves "worthless product(s) of human fabrication."
And by the way, the opposite of believing in the Scriptures are inerrant and infallible is NOT believing that they are errant and fallible. It is believing that the Scriptures themselves speak of their own authority and don't need that authority to be authenticated by artificial doctrinal pronouncements.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | January 13, 2008 5:07 PM
"Who is being excluded?"
Conservative theologians. Yes, they could sign onto a document that willingly abandons common ground in favor of liberal theology. But McLaren and other would certainly argue that they were being excluded by a document that found common ground on the issues I addressed.
"Historically, novel theological ideas were treated with suspicion, of course."
The terminology is novel. The notion that scripture is inerrant (or at least infallible) is not.
"Christians for most of history didn't feel they needed such doctrines, because the authority of Scripture was self-evident."
You kind of answer your own question, here. The authority of scripture is being questioned on several fronts. Perhaps the terminology isn't needed, but that isn't to say that our respect for the authority of scripture should change.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 13, 2008 5:46 PM
"The bottom line is that every member of that church had a very realistic view of the differences between their progressive Christian world perspective and the Islamic world view." James Martin
"Which is the point of the criticism from Mohler. This is not common ground between Christians and Muslims. This is common ground between progressive Christianity and Islam. You should expect, therefore, that there will be criticism from conservative theological circles who were inherently excluded by an effort that portends to speak on behalf of Christians." Kevin S
Kevin, have you ever considered practicing law? You have so artfully made it appear that the opposing parties are making the same argument you would. I stand in awe of the form and genius of that approach for its ability to deceive. I do, happen to believe that it is a rather dishonest way of taking a statement out of context. My statement to you was in response to your statement:
"The religious left (or whatever label they decide upon for themselves) seems to consider Islam a particularly exotic version of Christianity. The assumption, therefore, is that Muslims are similarly interested in social justice, homosexual tolerance, women in church leadership, and whatever it is that the liberal church is interested in. Perhaps even moreso, what with Muslims being so ethnic and all." Kevin S.
Again, I commend you on the genius of taking words out of context and twisting arguments. I have considerably less admiration for your integrity and exercising good faith in dialogue.
Posted by: JamesMartin | January 13, 2008 5:49 PM
"Again, I commend you on the genius of taking words out of context and twisting arguments. I have considerably less admiration for your integrity and exercising good faith in dialogue."
Yeah, I've heard the spiel.
Progressive Christians responded to the Muslims by citing commonalities between their movement and Islam. Well and good. However, when someone offers that they are saying the wrong thing, McLaren responded indignantly, suggesting that Al Mohler and et al oppose dialogue simply because they are in opposition to the way liberal Christians are conducting the dialogue.
"My statement to you was in response to your statement:"
But you quoted the question I asked as to whether the letter writers considered the commonalities between conservative theology and Islam. Usually, when you put a question in quotes, and then write, it is assumed that you are responding to the question in quotes. Why it is bad faith for me to assume so is beyond me.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 13, 2008 6:23 PM
Don:
Certainly someone of your intelligence (and I mean that in all sincerity) is familiar with statements of faith, mission statements, doctrinal statements and the "about us" page found on just about every web site.
If I declare "I believe in the Holy Spirit", is that where the Holy Spirit finds His worth? If I don't make such a declaration, does the Holy Spirit cease to exist? However, my declaration does have an effect on me and those around me that are within ear shot. And, the Holy Spirit is glorified through my statement of the obvious.
Christians for most of history didn't feel they needed such doctrines, because the authority of Scripture was self-evident. The fact that the churches read these books in worship day after day, week after week, was enough to secure their place of authority.
You are essentially saying exactly the same thing, just throwing a spin on it to make it a topic for debate. The fact that current day Christians believe and make declarations that God's Word is inspired, completely true and without error is by no means an artificial doctrinal pronouncement. It's not a doctrine at all. It's a matter of fact, with or without the "doctrinal pronouncement", as you have labeled it. If someone does not wish to acknowledge that, it's their problem, not ours.
It is a statement, to be sure, but not one that requires human authority. If the scriptures were anything less, well, they would not be worth anything more than Tom Clancy's latest. Fun to read, but that's about it.
Here's another thing to ponder...
"I, Mr. Fox, hereby declare that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God. He was crucified and rose again the third day. Through the blood that he willingly shed for me, I have forgiveness of sins and eternal life."
Does Jesus need me to say that to validate His deity? Nope. Does my saying it, believing it or living it validated it? Nope. Does my saying it, believing it and living it validate the work of the cross in my life. Well, YEAH! It sure does. Now, if someone comes along behind that statement and starts telling me I don't need to say that and I am either wrong or misguided for saying it, or how they used to say it in March of 1492, does it change who Jesus is or what He did? I don't think so. All that does is causes me to question the motivation of the one that tried to give me a lesson in history.
What Christians did over the last 1800 years does nothing to validate or negate the Word. The fact that they are what we now call the "early Church" does not give them status unless status is extended out of interest for what they did. What the Reformers thought about the scriptures, or what words they used to describe the scriptures back then, whether infallible in their opinion or not, also means very little at this point in history. Perpetuating their now ancient thoughts and philosophies only adds value to the extent that it advances the Gospel and provides practical application for living in today's world. Any knowledge of them otherwise is novelty fluff.
If you enjoy early Church history and find it interesting knowing what they did back in the day, that's fine. I don't fault you for that at all. There's even a part of me that is somewhat thankful that there are a few people out there that care about Church history. But, the fact that Christians did something a certain way 1800 years ago means little or nothing in today's world.
Posted by: Mr. Fox | January 13, 2008 6:24 PM
KEVIN! HI FIVE! YEAH!
Posted by: Mr. Fox | January 13, 2008 6:26 PM
"Yeah, I've heard the spiel." Kevin S.
"Why it is bad faith for me to assume so is beyond me."Posted by: kevin s.
Obviously good faith is beyond you as well.
Posted by: JamesMartin | January 13, 2008 7:26 PM
But, the fact that Christians did something a certain way 1800 years ago means little or nothing in today's world.
Posted by: Mr. Fox | January 13, 2008 6:24 PM
An attitude which probably goes a long way toward explaining the comparative ineffectiveness of the contemporary North American Christian church.
Posted by: I said it, I believe it | January 13, 2008 11:00 PM
"An attitude which probably goes a long way toward explaining the comparative ineffectiveness of the contemporary North American Christian church."
The tattooed, pierced and otherwise unlovely perpetual bad hair day post-modern world we live in does not give a flying flip about what the church did 1800 years ago.
Comparatively, the contemporary North American Christian church is currently one of the most effective the world has ever known.
Of course, that depends on what you are measuring. If you are measuring the number of souls won for Christ, then the contemporary NACC is doing great. God's awesome enough to be in control of what His Word accomplishes through the church, regardless of what his goofy kids do.
Posted by: Mr. Fox | January 13, 2008 11:16 PM
"Obviously good faith is beyond you as well."
I'll accept the tacit acknowledgment of your error.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 13, 2008 11:51 PM
Of course, that depends on what you are measuring. If you are measuring the number of souls won for Christ, then the contemporary NACC is doing great. God's awesome enough to be in control of what His Word accomplishes through the church, regardless of what his goofy kids do.
That means nothing because "salvation" is not simply about "soul-winning" -- the real question to be asked is if those people are becoming rooted and grounded in the historic Christian faith, being taught sound doctrine and serving Christ and His church. I heard one statistic that mentioned that 80 percent of people who accept Christ eventually backslide -- and I believe that's because God never called them in the first place (so, in essence, they actually made false professions).
Remember, Jesus is not something that you decide to "get" as a "value-added commodity" to go along with the life you maintain now; when you receive Him as Savior and LORD you give Him the right to order your life. He is not someone who improves what you have; He offers something completely new. If that's not the message that's being preached -- and in far too many North American churches it isn't -- it's not the true
Gospel, which is about reconciliation and redemption. He does not save us for our sake; He does so because He has work for us in building His Kingdom.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 14, 2008 12:06 AM
I agree that the true Gospel is "about reconciliation and redemption." And with, "He does not save us for our sake; He does so because He has work for us in building His Kingdom."
You're treading on thin ice by making assumptions about who really got saved and who made "false professions". Unless you are gifted with some weird supernatural ability to look at the hearts of men like God does, that's mighty dangerous.
Last time I checked my Bible, I could not find a verse that said backsliding keeps people from being saved. It certainly makes life harder when a person backslides, but I would be careful about making assumptions as to whether 80% of the conversions or callings to the Cross are genuine.
I also have to ask myself where in scripture it is the responsibility of the Church to analyze the work of the Holy Spirit in one person versus another. As someone else mentioned on this blog, we are called to be salt and light in a dark, unsavory world. We are not the gatekeepers to the Kingdom. God forbid that would happen, because Heaven would only be occupied by people that shared the views of the gatekeeper.
God surveys the hearts, and only He knows who is called and who is not. If we were judging by outward appearance, King David would not qualify to be a man after God's heart. That list or names could go on endlessly.
More people hear the Gospel message on a given day than any prior time in history. It stands to reason that some will not receive it. It also stands to reason that some will and will backslide into sinful habits, but that alone does not disqualify someone from being born again or negate their redemption.
This blog started off with a bunch of people voicing their support, or lack thereof, for dialog and finding common ground with Muslims, who are an unholy people that hate Jews and Christians, and anyone that is not a follower of Islam.
How it took on the form of a doctrinal debate on what percentage of self-professing Christians are real versus frauds is a mystery.
I think maybe we should all ask forgiveness for setting a bad example of what it means to be a Christian, say our prayers and call it a night.
Posted by: Mr. Fox | January 14, 2008 12:38 AM
This conversation may challenge some of our 'frustration levels' but thanks to the recent commenters who have at least tried to express their viewpoints without going into attack mode. There is a blessing to be had through the practice of good dialogue. How can the Body of Christ live without nurturing dialogue? How can each bring their giftedness and place in the journey into relationship with each where edification and sharpening can occur without it?
Maybe when we encounter persons with views we consider 'dead wrong' our task is not to be 'dead right.' Maybe God's Spirit is at work.
Listen. Can you hear the wind?
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 13, 2008 9:35 AM
AMEN, and good night to all of you.
Posted by: Mr, Fox | January 14, 2008 1:02 AM
I consider myself a Christian, trying hard to live by the principles I take from Jesus' words quoted in the Bible.
So, i am very conscious about forgiveness and the need to forgive ourselves too, in order to amend our errors. To love my "ennemy" is difficult - as that depends on whether this means a physical person or values (i have as 2ennemies" false values, distortion of the truth, manipulation of ideas, hatred, idolatry,etc.).
That said, the objective in mind at start point was dialogue with other faiths - namely Islam.
I wish to call attention to this: any fundamentalism is in principle short sighjted because not open to different ideas. If one approaches the Other (different) as an ennemy in need of conversion into Christianity - it is not possiblçe to hear or be heard.
The common ground is that God can be called many names, His true name being UNREVEALED to mankind.
Jesus said "MY FATHER'S HOUSE HAS MANY DWELLINGS" (translating - forgive me if these are not the exact words). SO THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO REACH UNTO HIM.
Hindu religion is 5 000 years old. Budhism, Judaism and Islam are also very old.
If one is TRUE to his faith but NOT fundamentalist, he/she can be a just man/woman and salvation contemplates the just.
"It is easier to spot a speckle on your brother's eye than a log on your own eye".
God bless you, salam aleikum, shalom.
Posted by: Eva | January 14, 2008 7:17 AM
Eva:
I want to try to be very careful not to put words into your mouth, so I will address what it appears to me that you are indirectly advocating.
You make reference to the fact that many pagan religions and Judaism (not a pagan religion) are very old in one breath, while, in the next breath you are categorizing the act of approaching a person of another faith as needing conversion to Christianity as fundamentalism, as if doing so is somehow an improper motivation.
Wrong is wrong, regardless of whether we are talking about a 200 year old religion such as Mormonism or a 5,000 year old religion such as Buddhism. Antiquity does not equal validity.
Embracing the teachings of various religions is a form of polytheism. Jesus' reference to the many dwell