Mennonites and the New Paradigm
Roll Over Menno would like to alert concerned Mennonites to the following:
Brian McLaren and Rene Girard to speak at upcoming Preaching Peace Conferences.
‘Preaching Peace’ spreads nonviolent message
http://www.mennoweekly.org/DEC/12-24-07/PEACE12-24.htmlPreaching Peace, which draws on speakers from a variety of Christian backgrounds, offers several nonviolent atonement seminars each year on topics ranging from “Perceptions of God That Lead to Violence” to “Restorative Justice as Forgiveness.” The first such gathering in 2008 will be held Jan. 12-15 at Parkersburg, W.Va.
In 2008, prominent speakers such as author Brian McLaren, theologian Jurgen Moltmann and (Rene) Girard will take part in some of the ministry’s other offerings…
…Though most Anabaptist churches are familiar with the gospel of peace already, Hardin said there is a need for renewal among Mennonites who have been swayed by mainstream or fundamentalist ideas about politics, warfare and faith.
…Hardin said. “We are out there really looking to inspire . . . new ways of thinking and being the church.”
See conference details here:
http://www.preachingpeace.org/makingpeace.htm
An interesting note here might be something else that Michael Hardin says about these new ways of thinking in a recently published book endorsed by emerging church leader Brian McLaren called Stricken by God?. This book is an ecumenical collection of essays questioning the theory of the sacrificial blood atonement as the church understands it. According to a book review of Stricken by God?, Hardin writes in the Preface that “Preaching Peace has created the Nonviolent Atonement Seminar featuring Tony Bartlett, Denny Weaver, Sharon Baker and myself. We will be traveling the US and Canada over the next few years bringing this new paradigm to churches, clergy and laity alike…there is a need to construct a new paradigm of the atonement in the 21st century; the sacrificial model is flawed.” (Incidentally, according to the above mentioned book alert and review, “two of the endorsers of Stricken by God? are MENNONITES - Willard Swartley, Professor Emeritus of Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary and Ted Grimsrud of Eastern Mennonite University.”)
ROM agrees that the new way of thinking taught at these conferences will definitely be about a new paradigm…it’s called a departure from the truth of the gospel.
ROM Index: Dangerously High
[...] of essays questioning the theory of the sacrificial blood atonement as the church understands it. Click here to read more and for links. This article or excerpt was posted on February 24, 2008@ 8:36 am . From: [...]
Thank you for this post. A special thank-you for the mention of ” Stricken By God”. The author, Brad Jersak has been influencing many Christian people in our area, and across Canada. I was part of a Bible study that studied his book about Listening Prayer in a Mennonite Church, and was almost deceived by the teachings in it until a relative of mine started studying unGodly practices that were entering her church. She shared what she had been learning, and we started to wake up to what was entering the church through many teachers. God bless you, as you are faithful to God’s word.
Bless you, Dawn.
For those with the ability to be theologically discerning (which Menno was), this so-called ‘new paradigm’ is actually the ancient paradigm of the gospel, as it was understood in the early church.
Some Mennonites seem to think that the modern fundamentalist/evangelical paradigm is gospel when it’s roots can easily be traced to medieval Christianity, a type of faith that Menno rejected.
I am not surprised that there is such a vociferous reaction to our work, for only those who need to justify violence in their theological paradigms are bothered by the work we do.
Being faithful to God’s Word is to follow Jesus, the Word of God as He interprets His Scriptures, to follow him in discipleship means to be informed by His hermeneutic, something virtually impossible for fundie Mennonites to do. So before you accuse anyone of straying from the path, ask yourself how far your theological tradition has veered from the ‘truth as it is in Jesus’
Yes, you are correct, Michael. Menno was so discerning that he could recognize another gospel when he saw it, which is why he boldy renounced ‘work’ that is done in the name of Jesus but in fact comes from the father of lies.
Veered from the truth? Do you hear that, all those who are true to the gospel that Menno Simons was persecuted for being faithful to? You are “fundie Mennonites” who are not faithful to God’s Word! Will you passively stand by and listen to this nonsense? The real spirit behind this paradigm of ‘Preaching Peace’ has just emerged and reared its ugly head…the Spirit of Deception and Error!
This is the kind of ‘preaching peace’ which Michael Hardin calls his ‘work’:
There is a book called ‘Stricken by God?’ that he has co-edited with Brad Jersak (he has also written the Preface and a chapter). This book, Michael Hardin says, is a collection of essays that publisher Brad Jersak “hoped would benefit those who were seeking an alternative to the encoded sacrificial paradigm of the Christian doctrine of the atonement” (page 14, Stricken by God?)
Hardin also says the following things in the Preface of this book:
“there is a need to construct a new paradigm of the atonement in the 21st Century, the sacrificial model is flawed”
(Hardin, p 14, ‘Stricken by God?’)
“this collision in the cross has produced is the demise of the power of sacrificial theories of atonement” (Hardin, p 15, Stricken by God?)
“The contribution by N.T.Wright…Marcus Borg, Rowan Williams…bring significant credibility to the discussion of this issue” (Hardin, p 15, Stricken by God?)
Yes, these are some of the essay contributors in ‘Stricken by God?’, a ‘work’ of Michael Hardin. Does anyone recognize these names?
Rowan Williams, Arch Bishop of Canterbury has been in the news quite a bit lately. He ordains homosexuals and thinks Sharia law is okay. Ladies, start sewing your burkas.
N.T Wright has been questioning the words of the apostle Paul lately. On page 144 of ‘Stricken by God?’ Wright says that Jesus “must have had to wrestle with the serious possibilities that he might be totally deluded”.
Marcus Borg is a heretic and enemy of the gospel of Jesus Christ. In this same book (which Michael Hardin says was “a fun book to edit and a remarkable book to read), Borg says this:
“The way of the cross is about discipleship, not believing in the blood of Jesus as a substitute for our own. I think it’s bad history because it presumes that Jesus’s death was part of the plan of God.” (Marcus Borg, p. 158, ‘Stricken by God?’)
This same book, ‘Stricken by God?’, is also endorsed by Brian McLaren, who, with great craftiness, has caused much confusion and doubt in the church by questioning the very Word of God and ‘re-inventing’ Christianity. McLaren also rejects Jesus Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice on the cross, and has even gone so far as to call the cross “false advertising for God.”
I there any doubt which spirit this all comes from?
The problem with this kind of discussion is that it really needs to take place at the level of exegesis and hermeneutics, disciplines that I sense are foreign to the commentators here.
You should understand very clearly that the gospel as it was proclaimed by Jesus, Paul, the Gospel Writers and other writers of the New Testament is not a transaction. This is a fatal error, one that was developed (apart from any biblical citation in Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo?) in the late 12th century.
One can find in Menno’s works acceptance of this model as well as Luther’s emerging Christus Victor model of atonement. Of course Menno’s theory of atonement is going to come from the Roman Catholic Middle Ages, he was a priest! Menno’s reforms were far more in line with those of the Devotio Moderna, his pacifism from his Dutch collegue Erasmus of Rotterdam than with Calvinist interests in the formulation of correct doctrine. This aspect of the Augustinain heritage did not really touch or affect the early Mennonites. But this does not mean that we today cannot continue Menno’s reform of discerning the gulf between violence and the sacred.
What I want to know is: who or what gives you the right to assume that you have the gospel truth? Have tou written or studied on the subject? Have you made contributions to the discussion at any level? Have you been to university or seminary? Do you have advanced degrees? Or are you anti-intellectual, close minded and hard hearted?
I will be bold: You have an aberrant gospel. You preach a false gospel (in my opinion). It is laden with pagan ideology, something I am certain you would loathe if you could see it. It is as medieval as feudalism, as violent as the gods of human mythology. It preaches an unhealthy God, whose name is Holy, to be set apart. You have made the Lord God into a false idol.
We can lob this nonsense all day at each other. I say, search the Scriptures, do your exegetical, historical and theological homework, then come prepared for conversation.
Michael,
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all)
(Acts 10)
I see you have quoted a wonderful text from Peter’s experience that the gospel is not only for the Jews but also for those who were pagan, the Gentiles. But having quoted it, you have not yet said anything about it, how you understand it, why you quoted it, what it means in its historical context, how the great [so-called] exegetes and theologians have used it. In short, quoting the Bible just leaves a dead silence. We are Jesus’ contemporary witnesses, and like Jesus (in Luke 4:16), we must interpret the Scriptures. They don’t mean anything or can mean everything if they stand alone apart from Jesus (as Luther said, “Scripture has a wax nose”).
A conversation looking at the Bible is much more conducive I think than beginning first with a battle over concepts. Can you please share why you quoted this text and what you understand it to say?
One observation:
You write, “Stricken by God?… is an ecumenical collection of essays questioning the theory of the sacrificial blood atonement as the church understands it.”
Which church? The church has dogmatized such doctrines as the Creator and the creation, incarnation, virgin birth, resurrection and second coming, the holy spirit, and even the church, but has never once made a theory of atonement into a dogma. Protestant scholasticsism/orthodoxy began this process, particularly in Calvinist circles in the 17th century, the Lutherans appear to have a mixed understanding, influenced by Luther’s Christus Victor emphasis, the Calvinists tended toward a forensic understanding (after all Calvin was to be a lawyer). But at no time has any one of the three great theories of the atonement (satisfaction, Christus Victor, moral influence) been dogmatized by the church as a whole nor by any church in it’s part, until recently. Certainly the Mennonites never made much of it, Menno doesn’t (his spiritual christology of the ‘celestial flesh’ doesn’t make for good atonement theory), and while his ethical reforms are important, his theological ones need help. He was a child of his time.
Some Christians have said that penal satisfaction IS the gospel. They have made penal satisfaction a sine qua non for being a Christian, and preaching the gospel. This is what is being challenged. This is what Stricken by God? is about.
There is much positive that can be said about fundamentalist/conservative Christianity. This doctrine is not one of them. I can see how one could say that if THIS was rejected then God’s love and grace go out the window because there is no demonstration apart from Jesus’ sacrifice. But such is not the case. Jesus’ death, when viewed through the lens of the metaphors used in the New Testament, as well as the use of Jewish Scriptures, all tend toward a de-emphasis on the forensic and an intentional shift away from the sacrificial, as understood by his contemporaries. But this requires work on the part of the exegete that goes beyond just quoting texts.
Michael,
Re:
“ quoting the Bible just leaves a dead silence”
“ They don’t mean anything or can mean everything if they stand alone apart from Jesus”
How can you say that without trembling before God? Jesus said God’s Word will not pass away (Matthew 5:18), and it certainly IS powerful enough to stand on it’s own.
“For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” Hebrews 4:12
“So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” Isaiah 55:11
There is much that could be said regarding the passage in Acts 10:34-36 which was quoted, but it was chosen for you because God is no respecter of persons, whether Jew or Gentile, whether one has been to university or seminary or has advanced degrees.
In Acts 4 we see that when the priests “saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.”
Paul who was very educated, but very humble, said this (2 Cor. 10:12):
“For we dare not class ourselves or compare ourselves with those who commend themselves. But they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.”
Moses also was very educated, but was the most humble man that ever lived.
The point is that we have no power unless we know the Lord, and love His Word. Do you love Him, Michael? Do you know Him? Are you more impressed with His Words than your own words? Do you walk in His power, or in the power of the letters in front of your name on your office door?
It would be a terrible thing to be one of these:
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 2 Timothy 3:5
And from Matthew 7:
21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
As for your comment regarding the book you defend called Stricken by God, which denies the sacrificial atonement of Jesus Christ, it was obviously a collection devised by the spirit of deception. Therefore, ROM believes there is no need to discuss its new paradigm and wrangle over words with those who promote it.
4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, 5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10)
I would point out that it is true that God is no respector of persons. As to whether I love Jesus or serve Him, that would up to God to decide, although if the affirmation of the saints means anything, I might well consider myself a srvant of the Lord. If it is the internal witness of the Spirit which you seek, then Yes, I know I am my Beloved’s and He is mine.
As for deception: the verses you apply to Stricken by God? and the ministry of Preaching Peace may just as easily apply to you. This is the problem with self-deception; we cannot see where we are deluded (Matthew 7:1-5). In your case, since you cannot admit to delusion or having been seduced by the spirit of delusion, you are stuck with believing the delusion which you believe and calling it Truth. As far as I am concerned you have cut the conversation off at the knees, working more from a spirit of fear (which is from the devil) than from a spirit of fraternal comraderie (which is from the Spirit of Jesus I Cor 12, Gal 5:22ff).
Pity, just when I had hoped that you and the Mennonites who use your site might have a heart receptive to Jesus and the leading of His Spirit. Instead I find defensiveness, an unwillingness to think and thus repent. Just like Jesus’ opponents in the gospels. But I’m not the least bit surprised.
“There is a need for renewal among Mennonites” Michael Hardin.
Having read the last 11 comments, I would whole heartedly agree ‘that there is a need for renewal’ not only amongst the Mennonites but amongst all who call themselves “Christians”.
This ‘renewal’ needs to come through God’s Will as revealed in His Word, not according to man’s thinking. Renewal from the heart of man will last but for a brief time, because “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” Jeremiah 17:9. We need to know Jesus. As Paul wrote in Phil.3:10 “That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;”. Do we long to know Jesus, so we can live a life of sacrifice to His glory? Paul also writes “For me to live is Christ and to die is gain” Phil.1:21. This truth did not originate with Paul, he received this from Jesus Christ. John 12:25 “He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal”. Please also note, ” And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent” John 17:3.
Who can come to such precious knowledge? “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 1Cor.2:14. The natural man will not accept the Word of God as his final guide and authority, to him that is unthinkable. Spiritual discernment is according to Word of God, not according to human intellect. Jesus promised to manifest himself to those who love Him and obey His commandments (His word), John 14:21 “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him”. This does not mean that a born of God Christian is superior to an unbeliever, no that is not so. Discernment is but God’s grace, to His children.
Renewal starts in the heart, “Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting” Psalm 139:23-24. I pray that God’s children would grow in boldness and “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints”, Jude …3
Jesus warned His disciples Matt. 24:4″And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you”.
Paul wrote, “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears”. Acts 20:29-31. Also in Colossians 2:8 “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
The Bible states that, “For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.” Ecclesiastes 7:20; Rom.3:10-12 “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one”. Rom.3:23 “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.”
When God says in His Word that ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God, that means ALL. How does anyone, be they learned or unlearned, dare to think or declare himself not to be in need of forgiveness of sin? For His Word unequivocally states that “there is NONE righteousness no not one”, with the exception of Christ “who knew NO sin”
The Bible also teaches “that there is no forgiveness of sins but by the shedding of blood”. According to the Bible Christ offered himself as a sacrifice for those who are willing to accept His sacrifice.
May God be gracious unto us and open our understanding so that we would follow Jesus’ invitation, “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls”, Matt.11:29.
Art:
I couldn’t agree more with your logic. However, right at the end I confess to a disagreement. Can you show me where, “According to the Bible Christ offered himself as a sacrifice for those who are willing to accept His sacrifice.” Now remember, it is not enough just to quote Biblical texts, but also to probe their meaning and context. For example, if you are going to quote from Hebrews you have to take into consideration the flow of the letter, it’s critique of the Law and it’s emphasis on first temple theology. Thanks.
ROM:
I suspect that you begin with a presupposition, that regarding the inspiration and authority of Scripture. If I am correct you would first of all (and above all) believe that the Bible is inspired by God, who gave/told the biblical authors what to write and how to write it, in short what is known as verbal plenary inspiration. B.B. Warfield and Francis Schaffer would be some of your “mentors.”
The problem is not that the Scripture is not authoritative, it is the way by which that authority is conceived. It could easily be demonstrated that the modern doctrine of biblical inerrancy owes more to 17th century rationalism than it ever did to sound biblical exegesis. When one studies the way Jesus, the early church and their Jewish contemporaries used Scripture and what they said about it’s ‘nature’ or authority, one is in a very different world than that of modern Christian inerrancy.
The thought processes and categories are different and this means that the view of Scripture is going to be different. Now this is just plain historical fact (see Van Mulder, Mikra [Fortress Press]).
One reality that boggles inerrantists are so-called discrepencies which need to be harmonized. The logic of this position dictates that if one card falls, if there is one demonstrable error in the Bible than the whole thing falls. I have a conundrum perhaps you can help with:
In Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus participates in a last meal before his arrest. In Matt, Mark and Luke, it is evidently a Passover meal, after which he is arrested, tried and convicted and the next morning, the day after the Passover, Jesus is executed.
John 13 also mentions this last meal ‘before the feast.’ In John 18:28, just before Pilate passes judgment on Jesus, it says the Pharisees would not enter into the Gentile palace of Pilate for fear of becoming ritually unclean and unable to eat of the Passover which would occur THAT NIGHT (to paska, the Passover meal), after Jesus was already dead and buried. In other words, is the last meal of Jesus a Passover meal or not? Did Jesus die before the Passover or after.
Michael,
Are you saying that someone like yourself (who has most likely written and studied on the subject, made contributions to the discussion at various levels, and has advanced degrees from university and seminary), sincerely desires an explanation for a conundrum regarding a (supposed) biblical contradiction from commentators whom you have said are foreign to the disciplines of exegesis and hermeneutical methods?
It is becoming apparent that no matter what interpretation is offered here regarding the Messianic fulfillment in the sacrificial death of Jesus, our Passover (Pesach) Lamb, on the 14th of Nissan, you will probably have something contrary to say.
However, for the benefit of others who may stop by to read, (and in accordance with Michael Hardin’s suggestion that we need to study Scripture the way Jesus, the early church and their Jewish contemporaries used Scripture) the following links may be very helpful:
http://biblicalholidays.com/Passover/messiah_in_passover.htm
http://www.hebroots.com/chap3.html#CHAP3
By the way Michael, I have a conundrum. Have you mistakenly used the wrong word for Pesach (Passover)? The Passover meal is called the Pesach Seder. Isn’t ‘Paska’ traditionally a Ukrainian bread served at Easter (Mennonites make it as well)? Now, would this be a classic example of yet another tradition that was borrowed from Jewish tradition (the early church) and changed? Since Paska contains yeast, as opposed to the unleavened Matzah used during Passover, wouldn’t it be a contradiction to use the word “paska” for the Passover meal? Thought you might be interested since you mentioned studying the early church and their Jewish contemporaries. I guess they don’t teach basic baking knowledge or give advanced bread making degrees at Christian U or seminary.
The term ‘to paska’ is the greek text form translated Passover meal. You still have not answered the question only deferred it. Did Jesus celebrate a Passover meal or not? Did Jesus die before or after the Passover meal was taken? BTW: your sarcasm is unbecoming.
Neither one of the websites you profer is of any assistance to my questions. These are both written by (obviously) Jewish Christian fundamentalists, the allegorical (and slightly postmodern) rendering of the Passover in hebroots.com is not an authentic (= historically credible) explanation of Passover in Jesus day nor does it answer the question I have put to you.
You are right, Mr. Hardin. Please forgive the sarcasm and lack of discipline, I have been disrespectful. I also apologize for overstepping my bounds, such as taking the liberty to address you by your first name, for example.
I believe this dialogue has gotten off the intended topic. My apologies for having taken you away from preaching peace.
As mentioned, the websites were for the benefit of others who may find them helpful.
The good news of the grace of the gospel is that where there is no law, there is no sin or in more modern parlance, ho harm, no foul. No offense taken, all is well.
Here’s what I would want to say in a nutshell:
I wish all my Christian brothers and sisters everywhere demonstrated their passion for the Bible the way our conservative brothers and sisters do. The Bible matters, it matters a great deal, and it matters because it tells us the story of a God who creates, reconciles and redeems us from sin, death and the devil.
I would wish that all my Christian brothers and sisters would take Jesus as seriously as they take their Bibles, for He alone is the Word (John 1:1-18), the final, authoritative expression of the will and mind of the Living God (Col 1:15-20, Heb. 1:1-3, Eph. 1:3-14 [note then ten times 'in Christ ot in Him" is used]).
I would wish that all my Christian brothers and sisters would take seriously the necessity to be born again, to have a living and vital relationship with God as do my conservative friends.
I wish for all my Christian friends the truly new schematic (Rom 12:1-2) that transforms our very thinking, means of perception and understanding, all of which produces true Wisdom, which is Jesus dwelling in us by His Spirit, living His life, God’s will, in our flesh.
I was first born again at 18 into a devoted Christian fundamentalist family. They were not my family of origin but they adopted me as though one of their own. I had a Thompson Chain Reference Scofield Bible then. And it was in this atmosphere that I learned the importance of the Bible, memorizing as much as was possible of it.
The matron of that house was very bright, well read for her type, and often posed the more prophetic ‘holiness’ type questions to the church. Some folks saw her as a troublemaker, but I knew her heart, her passion for wanting the church to live TODAY for Jesus.
So I began Simpson Bible College just out of high school, and was immersed into a world I never knew existed, the beautiful world of theology, biblical studies and church history. Having been a voracious reader as a child, this was like dining on the finest cuisine, and I read with a passion for over 15 years. There is a lot of great theology out there that gets passed by out of fear.
Perfect love casts out fear and a theology grounded in the axioms ‘God is Love’ and ‘God is Light’ does not begin with fear but with love.
If I could say anything to friends like you and your readers it is this: I am not the enemy, nor are folks like Brian McLaren. We both seek to proclaim Jesus Christ, incarnate, crucified, risen and ascended. We are most definetely NOT liberal. We know liberalism too, and it is as bankrupt as fundamentalism, perhaps more so. Liberal Christians tend to have the peace thing right, but they have thrown out of the Bible and Jesus as well (can’t trust the gospel writers or Paul). Imagine a Christianity without Jesus, but it is exists.
In it’s liberal form, Christianity is ethics focused. Ethical zeal is demonstrated by how ‘active’ a person is (thus activist Christianity). Rationalist at it’s core, influenced by German idealism, liberals have no real doctrine of Scripture and thus stand above it and critcize it.
In it’s conservative form, Christianity is ‘holiness’ focused. Holy zeal focuses on defending God and maintaining boundries belived to have been set by God. Rationalist at it’s core, influenced by Scottish common sense realism, conservatives only allow Scripture to ‘prove’ their doctrine, and thus they too stand above Scripture and muzzle it. As David Kelsey has pointed out, it is not what you say about the Bible, but how you use it that really says what you think and believe about it.
The key move is to recognize what the KEY themeatic element of the Bible is all about, and that can only be gotten from the story of Jesus found in the four canonical gospels. In my next post I will look at Luke 4:16ff.
In the meantime I think a conversation like this is beneficial. It is not about winning or losing but recognizing that we both love Jesus with all our hearts, that we both study the Scriptures constantly and that we are both in the one Body of Christ.
Mr. Hardin,
You said that you were first born again into a devoted Christian fundamentalist family. Kudos to the family, but there is even greater rejoicing in the fact that when we are born again, we are adopted into GOD’S household, joint heirs of the promise, and grafted into the olive tree. As it is not up to any person to judge a man’s heart, when you speak of your passion for the beautiful world of theology and church history, surely we can only assume you have simply forgotten to mention your relationship with our beautiful Saviour who has saved us from the wages of sin and death, and from an eternity in hell (which is why we live TODAY for Him, out of gratitude, from justification to sanctification, set apart and Holy, for HIS glory ONLY).
You say: “I am not the enemy, nor are folks like Brian McLaren. We both seek to proclaim Jesus Christ”
If Brian McLaren is not an enemy of Jesus Christ, then perhaps someone should ask him why he has endorsed, with his own name, a book called Reimagining Christianity by Alan Jones. (The same Alan Jones who has said ‘the doctrine of the Cross is a vile doctrine’.) McLaren also says he has a high regard for Marcus Borg, an interspiritualist who denies the atonement, is against the doctrine of the cross, says Jesus was not divine and does not take the Bible literally. This is the same Borg who authors an essay in the very book which you yourself, Mr. Hardin, have recently edited and stamped your approval on. The book which includes Borg’s essay “Executed by Rome, Vindicated by God” in which he says: “The way of the cross is about discipleship, not believing in the blood of Jesus as a substitute for our own” and “it’s bad history because it presumes that Jesus’s death was part of the plan of God” and “According to the gospels, Jesus did not die for the sins of the world.” But back to McLaren, who was the whole point of this post to begin with, as he is speaking at your Preaching Peace Conferences, (and has also endorsed the book you edited that contains the Borg essay) – McLaren himself has taken on the task of redefining Christianity, God’s Word, and the Kingdom of God, and has said that the cross is false advertising for God. One can find out about Brian McLaren’s supposed secret message of Jesus here:
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/006/kingdom-world.htm
(Again, this is for the benefit of others.)
Mr. Hardin, you said in your last comment that Brian McLaren is a person who is seeking to proclaim Jesus Christ. However, it is obvious that he is an enemy of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And since you put yourself in the same statement and category as Brian McLaren, we can only assume you are in agreement with him. And he obviously agrees with you and Marcus Borg, as he has endorsed your book. It appears you are (voluntarily) in the company of those who twist God’s Word and reject the sacrificial atonement. This is something not to be taken lightly. You should be trembling in your shoes.
You also said that the KEY theme of the Bible can ONLY be gotten from the story of Jesus in the four gospels. This is a ridiculous statement, as the gospel theme has been written from Genesis to Revelation. This sounds exactly like the same thing Tony Campolo says in his book “Red Letter Christians”: “you can only understand the rest of the Bible when you read it from the perspective provided by Christ.”
Joseph Farah of World Net Daily examined this book recently and said the following about this attitude:
“Given that Jesus is, as most Christians believe, the living Word, the God who spoke all of the Bible into the hearts and minds of those who faithfully transcribed its 66 books, this is somewhat disturbing. In other words, Christ’s perspective pervades the entire Bible – not just the red letters. Further, there is nothing in the red letters that is at odds with the rest of the Bible. There is no contradiction between the red letters and the black letters.
The whole sickening, neo-Marxian, materialistic, utopian diatribe left me wondering what work might be left for Jesus when He returns.”
It is obvious that Campolo and McLaren both preach the same gospel. It is also becoming obvious that this is the gospel of Preaching Peace.
You mentioned in your last comment that in your ‘next post’ you will look at Luke 4:16. That marvelous moment in history where Jesus picked up the huge scroll of Isaiah and opened it to the exact spot that prophesied His coming. But wait, what is this you said? YOUR next post? Mr. Hardin, which is more unbecoming? My sarcasm or your pride? You are not the one calling the shots here or making posts. You are a reader who is using Roll Over Menno as a platform to cover your tracks and tranquilize the already sleepy sheep with smooth words so they will accept your teaching.
How long do you actually intend to keep coming back to restart this dialogue and speak your mind? This entire thread, in fact, is reminiscent of a combination of Campolo and McLaren titles - ’Speaking My Mind’ (Campolo) and ‘The Last Word, and the Last Word After That’ (McLaren), as you certainly speak your mind and always have to have the last word, and the last word after that. You have demanded answers to questions, not with pure intent, not to listen, but in order to be heard. I have apologized, while you continue in a spirit of arrogance.
You have quoted David Kelsey. Allow me to quote the Apostle Paul, who said;
“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.”
Mr. Hardin, you can cover your wolf tracks all you like, but not here.
End of dicussion then. May the Lord take pity of your close mindedness.
Jer 8:11 For they have healed the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.
Although coming to this thread about a month late, just in case anyone will ever read it again, I just want to say this (to Michael Hardin and others like him):
If you want to invent a new religion, go ahead, but make yourself its god and don’t try and associate it with Jesus or call it Christianity.
Jesus taught that the God of the Old Testament (who you will see is quite violent) is his Father. Yet, Jesus taught his disciples to be non-violent. Is this contradictory? Menno Simon taught that atonement is by the sacrifice of Christ, by his shed blood, and yet at the same time taught that men ought not be violent to one another, that Christians should not engage in war. Yet, Menno also taught, in accordance with Scripture that the government bears the secular sword and not in vain for it is ordained by God to punish evil doers. Yet, a Christian is not to be part of the government and use the secular sword. Is this contradictory? Is it contradictory for God to engage in violence and yet command men to not do so? No, because he is God. He created everything and what he does with it is his business. This is why Paul says to “avenge not yourselves, but rather give place to wrath, for ‘vengeance is mine’ saith the Lord, ‘I will repay.’” The Lord being all-holy will repay and therefore men must not, unless specifically commanded by God to do so. For when men avenge themselves they take the divine prerogative of God, to judge all the world, upon themselves. If you do not beleive this, you do not beleive the Scriptures. Do not pretend that you are a Christian with a higher understanding of the Scripture, some secret interpretation that only you can see. No, but you are a charlatan inventing a new religion but who does not have the backbone to put your own name to it but rather try and tie it to Jesus.