Agree or disagree?
Bono, lead singer for U2 said: "If Jesus were on earth you'd find him in a gay bar in San Francisco. He'd be with the people suffering from AIDS. These are the new lepers. If you want to find out where Jesus would be hanging out, it'll always be with the lepers."
What do you think?
What do you think?
posted by Pastor Phil Print at 3:36 PM
42 Comments:
Jesus hanging-out in a gay (or any bar)? i think that's a big stretch.
would he associate with & recieve a gay person? certainly. the same way he recieved me when i surrendered to His Lordship over my life. i wonder if bono realizes that there were gays when Jesus did walk the earth? would He heal a person with aids. i imagine He would, just as He healed all those who came to Him believing. it didn't seem to me that Jesus really lobbyed for any particular group, but simply called all people to 'repent for the kngdom of God is at hand'. i think the common denominator of those He hung with, was those who were broken & wanted to hang with Him.
i thought this was an excellent topic for debate (thanks phil) & have been anxiously waiting for comments.
i know nothing of bono & have been wondering why he seems to be received as a prophet among some at crossroads?
i'm gathering that he's an admirable humanitarian, but does anyone know if he's been 'transformed by the renewing of his mind' through the regenerating work of the Spirit?
if not, i wonder why he's more qualified than say...Marilyn Manson, to instruct us regarding wwjd? M M fancies himself to be an expert on the subject as well, since he was ostrisized as a young boy in sunday school.
while i understand that we the church have done much ill representing Christ throughout the ages, i wonder why the fact that 'men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil (jn 3:19)' equation is NEVER mentioned at crossroads as a possible reason that some folks hate Christ & christians?
without judging any of my motives or projecting any anger at a percieved agenda to these comments, can anyone in authority answer my questions?
thanks!
I can jump in - and not just because I'm a big Bono fan!
I think at a 'high' level - the statement of Jesus and Lepers makes sense. Yes - Jesus would definitely be ministering to the poorest and sickest in our society. In terms of the specific 'would Jesus hang out at gay bars' I think that may be a stretch. Doesn't there HAVE to be certain limitations? And before I get the big "NO" I'll preempt with the question 'What about Strip Clubs?' Even though there are many lost souls in strip clubs - I absolutely won't go in one.
I think the key is that Jesus "Attracted" the sick/poor/outcasts of his day. And I believe if he were here today he'd "attract" the same. For the most part (and yes there are exceptions) the Church doesn't.
For me - the key to Passion's verse is not the men are sinful - because we are. It's that the modern day church tries to 'pretend' that it's not sinfull and simply tries to point out other sins that they argue are more aggregious. The terms 'judgmental and hypocrites' are often used appropriately.
I'm guessing your a big Apostle Paul fan Passion - I am too. Let's use his model:
1. Paul told the members of his Churches that they were behaving badly and they should stop doing so. Our pastors should do the same. But they should talk TO us and not ABOUT others!
2. Paul also told the members of his Churches to stop pointing their judgmental fingers at those outside of the Church because by doing so they were being hypocritical.
3. And Paul said many times that HE TOO was sinful and struggled and 'imperfect.' The slogan "No Perfect People Allowed" fits this idea perfectly.
Isn't THIS a good model?
The Bible states over and over and over that the 'world' will see God's goodness through our Love and our Deeds. If we aren't doing enough "Good" in this world - then we're simply not doing our jobs!
Back to Bono - he's a rockstar - not a teacher or preacher or idol or prophet. But he's a guy who's had a passion for Jesus and a passion for those who suffer for over 20 years. I have admiration and respect for him AND I really like his music.
I can't comment on Marilyn Manson because I don't him or his music enough. (He scares me too much.)
I appreciate & whole heartedly agree with humble pie's comments.
I'd like to officially go on record that I agree that the church in general is & has been more critical than compassionate to groups of people that define themselves as biblically immoral through their choice of lifestyle. Furthermore, I agree that we should not be judgmental but be gracious servants to all people regardless of anything imaginable about them.
Having said that, I think it only respectful that I should not continue to receive fundamental sermonettes on our need to be compassionate servants in our stewardship of the gospel to all people groups, as an answer to my every comment or question. fair enough?
personally, i don’t know of any christian who is not very excited to minister to anyone who they come across who is broken, repentant & open to the gospel no matter what their lifestyle is.
My question is still hanging out there. So, in order to avoid the inevitable sermonette, I'll make it very simple. Yes or no answer only please:
Is it possible that the gay rights agenda despises Christ, christians, the bible, moral values…etc, not because of bad testimonies but because '...their works were evil' jn 3:19?
for those who have to answer by way of an essay, here's a separate question:
Could bono & disciples also see Jesus hanging at a KKK rally?
If so, would He be judgmental or gracious & understanding?
Why, why not?
What?? You don't like my sermonettes?? I'm hurt!
OK - I'll try to keep it short. Although 'Pithy' has never been one of my strengths.
Your Question:
"Is it possible that the gay rights agenda despises Christ, christians, the bible, moral values…etc, not because of bad testimonies but because '...their works were evil' jn 3:19?"
My answer: YES! (much the same way that at times I despised my parents for their 'Rules' when I wanted to break them)
But I'm not sure what difference that fact would make. Should it change in any way 'how' the Church approaches the world? (I am sincerely seeking your input here!)
Maddie - Spiritually I don't believe there is any difference in sins. However - as we are human beings, there is CERTAINLY a difference in the human rammifications. God states that he views our anger as the same as murder. However - my anger doesn't have the same effect on this earth as murder does.
humble- not that i don't like your sermonettes, but they can be frustrating when i'm looking for a more direct answer.
my answer to your question: 'should it change in any way how the church approaches the world?' is: no! however, it can help us with any misunderstanding regarding our perceived failure to reach them. it also nullifies a prominant doctrine known as 'kingdom dominion'. this doctrine suggests that all who are fortunate enough to receive a perfect witness will respond favourably to Christ.
my kkk question is designed to get at what i believe is an underlined hypocrisy among some christians who are more pc(politically correct) non-judgemental, than they are JC (Jesus Christ) compassionate.
Maddie- may I start by saying that your humble & inquisitive approach to blogging is an example that the rest of us can learn from!
The concerns that you raised are exactly the point that I was trying to make. For example; the gay rights agenda is one that our culture (for the most part) is sympathetic to. Our culture is not sympathetic to racism. Should we as christians be sympathetic to either? Who's to say that the gay agenda is any less damaging to our moral society than racism?
It is my suspicion that bono & friends are critical & finger-pointing against those opposing the gay lifestyle, but not the racist. Just as anyone who blogs here with a more conservative slant will get torn to shreds by those telling us it's not of God to tare people to shreds. It's a bit like the WELLSTONE! supporters not understanding the bushites & vise versa. Both sides having valid points but no one willing to concede.
Having said all that, I also must say that as christians we are to love everyone, understanding that we are all sinners in need of God's grace. Should we be grieved over illicit behavior? Yes, including our own. If we weren't, we'd have to wonder if we were being 'renewed/sanctified' or not.
Hows that for an explanation?
Passionate - your last paragraph...that's the best conclustion/summary statement I've read on these blogs!
I keep rereading it trying to find a point of contention. But I can't. I agree 100%!!
Thanks for saying so humble pie! I was feeling pretty smug regarding my coverage of this topic if I may say so myself!
However, I was anticipating being challenged on my use of the phrase 'damaging to our moral society'. One could argue the whole 'it's not our place to police morals' issue, to which I would have agreed.
Instead, I should have said 'damaging to peoples lives'. I wouldn't think there would be much to debate among bible believers over that.
on a related topic, can anyone think of an appropriate application to Jesus' instruction to not 'cast our pearls before swine', or 'give that which is holy to dogs'?
He specifies who 'dogs' are in rev 22:15.
Hey Teach- I've taken your side on this issue more or less, mind if I comment?
Probably like yourself, I have trouble with the arts & crescents crowd, always assuming they know wwjd. I believe that more often than not, they're acting more as the devil's advocate & 'accuser of the brethren', than they are offering constructive criticism. Although I admire Bono's philanthropy, the rock star/celeb types always seems so sanctimonious about their efforts. To me, that's the evil twin to the Pharisee spirit.
Can I assume that you're objective on the blog is to teach/help others understand a different point of view? If so, folks are more apt to receive new ideas when they're presented in a respectful way. Try re-reading your comments & see if you'd receive anything from you. You seemed to lump everyone reading the blog as "bono worshipers & happy sappy' socialists. Come on now bro, you can do better than that. You don't want to be guilty of helping 'the accuser of the brethren' too do you?
For whatever it's worth my brother. Take it or leave it, but I could use some constructive help here dude!
I've enjoyed the conversation (from the distance). The context of the Bono quote came from a message I gave last weekend at CR. The point was how the outside world perceives Christians/the Church (not good). For the world to hear our message (Jesus died for our sins and offers abundant/eternal life to those who repent and follow him), we must do more than just TALK.
The church talks well. Too often all we talk about is how bad the darkness is. The movement here at CR is to get out into the darkness (like Jesus did) and shine our light and sprinkle our salt. For this dark world to hear our message they must first see our love. This isn't about a social gospel, it's about earning the right to open our mouths. It's grace and truth--both/and, not either/or.
P.S. I'm not into Bono's music, but I do like how he's using his influence to help the helpless. I promise you, no one worships him at CR!
Teacher, before you disappear, please go back and re-read what Passionate said to you. You obviously missed his point. You missed mine as well, but his is way more important for you to grasp.
one more thing from me at bono's expense. i wonder if he hangs at gay bars? if so, he must be in drag or the poparazzi would have spyed him by now. this was in fun, i couldn't resist!
yes, i'm afraid i do.
speaking of which, i believe i still have a valid question hanging out here for pastor phil.
sincerely pastor phil no disrespect, but in the 5 or so years attending cr now, i've never (at least i can't remember) heard you speak on the flip side of things like bono's comment, with an equal truth like: 'if the world hates Me, know that they will also hate My disciples'.
if i would hear you share the more 'negative' but equally true emphasees of the bible (including Jesus') from time to time, i may not challenge a quote like bono's. i think you'd be able to keep more precious souls around like 'amazed' if you did as well. just my opinion.
amazed- you are welcomed! i just got done giving you a little somethn-somethn on the other blog too.
i assumed by a prior comment that you've left or are leaving cr. let me give you this to consider:
where do you think you could do the most good? at a church full of other mathew henry qoutn', fired-up, full gospel toten' ladies, or leading a small group of young impressionable girls at a church where there may not be many?
i've done my part, now may His Spirit do the rest!
amazed- once again, i must qualify myself & make sure you know my comments are meant to be taken as light-hearted. most every thing i say, i could end with the old ;-) symbol. i would never presume that you're not where you're supposed to be. OK?
i should also qualify (not just because some know who i am) that though i agree cross roads has a seeker sensative approach, it's a great church & serves a great purpose. it's a great place to bring visitors, new people are constantly be added & getting converted to Christ & i'm being challenged to apply practical biblical instruction every service.
i will agree that some of the deeper instruction isn't brought out in the regular services. however, i've spent most of my adult life in a church where hyper-spirituality & holliness was about all that was presented, without the practical living element. so, i'm at a stage now where i'm appreciating an environment where it's encouraged to be human/ourselves & encourage each other in our struggles. it seems that in my experience, you'll never find everything under 1 roof.
it seems like your doing great by encouraging yourself in the Lord right now, even though you're not necessarily attending a fellowship. it all comes down to our personal relationship with Him in the end anyhow.
zach- you gave me a chance to say something i thought about this weekend.
in my previous posts, i guess i got hung-up on the whole 'hanging-out' idea. ie, i think it's a bit perverse to presume that Jesus would be a regular attendant at any bar, gay or otherwise. eg: although He associated with prostitutes, there is no record of His frequenting brothels. He sent His disciples door to door to preach the gospel, not cabaret to cabaret (i'm having a blast!). i'm sure paul talked to anyone who'd listen to him on his missionary trips, but we have no account of his going to any roman bath-houses to minister.
however, would Jesus attend a gay bar if invited to do so? i imagine He might, if it meant it would result in a zacheus-like conversion for someone there.
this is what happened to me on easter at my in-laws: a nephew recently came out of the closet. he brought his partner to our get-together. most of the family is not comfortable with this arrangement at all. i have not been well received into this clan myself, since i'm a born-again christian. identifying with their anxiety, i went out of my way to make them fell welcomed.
so, even though i hate homosexuality as much as i hate what meth addiction can do to a person, i still love people.
although i don't want people to think that God/His word condones sinful behavior, it doesn't make sense to assult someone with my understanding unless they're opened to change. after all, when acting as an abassador for Christ, we must put others before our need to be right.
stick around zach, 'you can learn more here by accident, than elsewhere by design' (garage logic).
since it's much more fun being an antagonist here & since I partly agree with teacher (& since I'm bored), I'd like to chime in on the teacher chastisement.
Allow me to share my salvation experience:
I spent much of my teens & early 20's being rebellious, violent, immoral & disrespectful to those around me & to complete strangers. I was as noble as an alley cat regarding religion or anything to do with God. I was not raised going to church & was a superstitious pagan. I began to reap what I'd been sowing with relationships, career, health… At the ripe old age 21, my life was already falling apart. I began to put 2 & 2 together as to why it was. I had a couple people telling me I needed to repent & follow God. They had done so recently themselves. Some years prior, I had received vivid visions of hell through dreams & during drug use. So I did repent, & began attending church with them. 25 years later & I'm still 'growing in grace & in the knowledge of Christ'. The point of this, is to say that I didn't necessarily understand the grace & love of God (I still don't have it figured out) but I knew if I continued to rebel, I would have a ruined life & an eternity in hell. That was enough to get me to respond to God at the time. The church I began attending validated my experience by preaching the need for radical conversions. Therefore, I know where teacher is coming from. If a point is raised that doesn't directly reference love or grace, it's like throwing a turd in the punch bowl. This causes him to retaliate with accusations. What happened to 'no perfect people allowed'?
Dear Passionate,
"No Perfect People Allowed" doesn't give one permission to misrepresent what people have said, does it? I have been mis-quoted and then in the same post blasted for something that I never said. Do I shrug my shoulders and say, "Oh well, they're not perfect so I should let it go?"
If the conversation doesn't move towards something better (even if just better understanding of differening viewpoints), or if we have to spend time going over the same ground over and over again... i.e.
A:"I didn't say that"
B: "Well you didn't say it, but you meant it"
A:"No I did not"
B:"Well, I know people like you in the past that said things like that"
A:"I'm not them"
B:"Yes you are, because you say things like them..."
A:"Argh..."
... then why bother?
So, in summary, "No perfect people allowed" doesn't mean I'm going to applaud people that misrepresent what I say.
Now, you've shared your story, and I appreciate it it, and where you're coming from. But why take a shot at the end concerning CR?
Blessings...
PS, "It fun being an antagonist here...", sorry, I missed that line... It seems pretty clear more motivation. If it's antagonism you desire, then why oh why are you hear? Where is the "fragrance of Christ" that would draw unbelievers to Him? Just wondering.
Blessings
Here is my version of the 'blog-world quarrel:'
"My favorite color is Blue."
"Blue! You've got to be kidding me. RED is the best color. You people ALWAYS shout out BLUE. I'm so sick and tired of hearing Blue, Blue, Blue. What's wrong with you? Why not open your eyes and see that Red is the BEST color?"
"Red? Come on. No way. BLUE! Why is it that everytime someone mentions Blue - you folks have to shout back with Red? I know someone who likes Red - they're just a horrible person."
"Fine. Be that way. You Blue folks jump on anyone that disagrees with you. It's Pathetic."
"Come one Red. You started it."
"I did not."
"Did to."
"Blue!"
"Red!"
Matta- thanks for your response!
Besides christians being known for their critical spirit of disagreeing outsiders (the topic of the blog), they can also be known as 'those that kill their wounded'.
It's true teacher is rough around the edges, but isn't it true that outsiders can be too?
2 tim 2:25 tells us that we should 'in meekness instruct those that oppose themselves…'. I suffered some abuse of authority regarding the use of Gods word from a former pastor & elders. When I was in the midst of it, I didn't realize that it was abuse & therefore I treated some of those around me the same way. Through the grace of God, time & understanding brothers/sisters like you, I am beginning to be healed of legalism & am starting to trust my spiritual leaders. By the same token, there are angles that I've learned from the Word in that atmosphere that can hardly be disputed. So my point was, give a brother some room & he may come around. While I wouldn't expect that anyone should tolerate abuse, I think at least on a blog we could all lighten-up a bit. My 'antagonist' remark was meant to be taken lightly as well. However, it does seem to be the way to keep things hopping on the blog!
Thank you & blessings to you too!
Dear Passionate,
Thank you for responding. You are right about how people can go after each other, Christians and non-Christians alike, and I admit that I am guilty of that as well.
I have disagreed with Teacher in the past, but I have also defended Teacher when his/her comments were misinterpreted by others. I have also agreed with some things Teacher has said.
About your point, "give a brother some room & he may come around", I agree with you there. I've noted that elsewhere you have given Teacher some suggestions on postings, so I have no doubt you sincerely desire good dialog.
I also agree that "we could all light-up a bit", again me included. I do believe that we should demonstrate the humility that we are called to. In this simple way at least, we should show some difference from the manner in which the world interacts. I fall short here, so I realize that I may be approaching hypocriticality (my new word, you're free to use it...) when I post.
As for your "antagonist" remark...sorry for not taking it lightly...as we interact more I'll get a better sense of where you're coming from. You are right though that it did at least get a response!
Finally, thank you for opening up concerning your past. It is a humbling thing to have someone share past pain, regardless of the forum. I believe I understand where you are coming from. If in the future it seems I have misunderstood you, or gone somewhere I shouldn't have, please let me know.
Blessings
Now I wasn't going to post because this comment is so far off the original question and this thread is getting awfully long, but I couldn't stop thinking about the line Passionate about "The church I began attending validated my experience by preaching the need for radical conversions" and the premise of this post.
Let me share my salvation experience...
I grew up in a Christian home. My parents were firm in their belief and passed that on to me. We attended Church every week and I attended Wednesday night "Adventure Club." One night when I was about seven (I don't remember exactly when) I came home from Adventure Club and I repented my sins and asked Jesus into my heart. Having been a child who was often unsure of himself, I did this numerous times as life went on. (I wanted to make sure I did it.) After that day (and the other days) I went on following Christ’s example, loving those around me and doing my best to be a model Christian. But wait, this is what I was doing before I asked Jesus into my life. My life did not change at all. As I grew up I continued to follow Christ’s example. I never have had a rebellious time in my life. And please don't get me wrong, I have had my struggles and Christ has brought much joy into my life and has helped me become the person I am today. Without Him I would be a different individual, but He has never given me the pleasure of a radical conversion.
The reason I am taken aback by your statement, Passionate, is because I do not fall into the group you say your Church preached about. I just concerns me because this statement is like (similar but very different) to other statements that often scare people away from the Church.
I think my main point is that we always need to be careful about putting God into any box what-so-ever. Some believe that a person must ask Jesus to save them where another believes that everyone goes to heaven no matter what. None of us truly know the Absolute Truth that God does. All of our understandings are subject to our context and interpretation. ALL of our understandings are subject to our context and interpretation.
The only thing we can do is read the Bible, Pray, and do our best to understand what God wants from us. And I will guarantee you that we will never agree on God’s plan for the world. What need to agree on, as Pastor Phil has pointed out many times, is that we need to “Agree to Disagree.” Hopefully no-one feels hurt at what is said on these blogs because all of us could be wrong in the end.
Bernie 2- perfect point!
The fact that you grew-up in a believing environment & required assurance of Christ's love & acceptance to be saved, is every bit as valid as my needing a 180 degree turn around. e.g., sometimes my kid's ill behavior stems from my lack of attention & therefore they need some love & affection. Some times however, they're just being nasty & need the board of education applied to their seat of knowledge. Mine & (maybe) teacher's experiences equip us to identify with the wayward rebel who may need a swift kick in the seat & to know where they'll end-up unless they repent. I guess it's all about 'being all things to all men' & knowing how to be 'a fisher of men'.
You're comment that some folks believe 'everyone gets to heaven no matter what', is well worth debating on a church blog. A comment like that, I would consider healthy antagonism!
I think we need to remember what Christ tells us in Luke 14:25 - 34. While we all may not use the term 'radical' when discussing a 'conversion' we SHOULD stress that following Jesus IS a RADICAL and life long venture. While we shouldn't 'scare people away' from Church - we also shouldn't 'pretend' that being a Christian isn't a big deal. "Yeah - OK - I'll give this Christian thing a try for a while." Christ doesn't want 'mob mentality' crowds - he wants personal commitments.
We all come to Christ from a different perspective - I actually see a bit of my own story in both Passionate and Bernie2. But IN Christ, we are all now on a single path.
pardon me if the above posts aren't a legitimate segue, & i'll understand if y'all want to let sleeping dogs lie, but couldn't our past experiences also be applied to our acceptance of or apprehension to the whole seeker- sensitive aproach to the bible?
for anyone who cares, here's my take on the subject. these are generalizations of course:
the '60-70's gave us the hippie, Jesus freak movement. it's essence was 'peace & love to all, believe what you wish'.
in the '80-90's, there was an attempt by organized churches to reel-in this renegade movement. this gave us the 'shepherding' movement. this movement consisted of a controlling approach to the bible. this & the prior era is where many of the baby-boomer beleivers came from.
in the new millennium, we have a 'seeker-sensitive' approach. my concern is that this approach almost brings us full-circle again rather than somewhere in the middle.
while i whole-heartedly want to trust my pastor, past experience tells me that it's up to me to figure out things for myself.
any thoughts on this?
I agree 100% in the 'cyclical' nature of things. It is usually caused by a 'reaction' to the thing before it. And it's funny how clear and obvious it is in retrospect, yet so few people 'in the midst' can grasp that they're in a part of the cycle that will one day be looked upon with criticism. It's that whole "everyone before us was wrong - but we're not" argument.
My guess (and that's truly what it is) is that Pastor Phil would encourage you to "figure out things for yourself." He wants us to read the Bible - and to read it IN DEPTH with great diligence. The Church even provided journals for everyone to help them. I think the last thing that Crossroads wants to do is to Spoon feed people 'opinions.' Some folks WANT their pastors to get on the pulpit and say:
"If you drink alcohol - even a thimbulfull - you are sinning. Don't try to justify it - it's a sin. And you're making God mad."
This is a direct quote from Jerry Falwell by the way.
People think that the more their church or pastor preaches Black and White the DEEPER they are in their Faith. This is bad - that's bad - this is good, etc. I think it's just the opposite. I like your use of the word shepherding, I think it fits with this logic - whatever my PASTOR says is what I believe.
By the way - I don't think that Pastor Phil lands in the Jesus Freak movement either. And I certainly wouldn't say that he's an 'anything goes' kind of guy. As I've noted in prior posts - I am continually challenged as a husband, as a father, as a friend, as an employee, as a Christian, etc. And that doesn't come from a message of 'Peace and Love, man' or from a message of 'Or you'll go to Hell sinner.' So I think that at Crossroads at least we ARE in the middle. And yet - to my original point - I have no doubt that 100 years from now people will be able to list our shortcomings as well!
Thanks for raising the question, Passionate. Humble: thanks for answering...
Since the topic was raised about what kind of church we are, I'm looking forward to the day when I hear a message on Leviticus 13:40 (I prefer the NIV for this passage) (grin)
Blessings...
PS. A more thoughtful response may well be forthcoming.
We could probably do a three part series on this. One sermon for each of Lev 13:40-42. (And after we can check Matta for any red spots!)
After that I'd like to hear a sermon on:
1 Timothy 5:23
ok humble, excellent insight. rather than saying 'trust my pastor, i should have said 'trust my pastor's direction' this makes it a bit less personal.
also, while i'm perfectly comfortable figuring out things for myself in my current stage in life, i doubt that everyone is. your falwell quote is a good example of what many would consider deeper bible preaching, but that's not really where i was going. my concern is what i've said in previous blogs. it's about seeing all sides of a topic, going different directions & looking at things from a holy God's perspective from time to time. the bible does that, so I'd argue that we should too. doing so in my past enables me to see those things more clearly now, even though many topics are not touched on at cr.
I get where you're coming from Passionate. I think the reality boils down to the magic number 52. There are only 52 Sundays in a year. Which means - in reality - there are only so many topics a Church can tackle and there's only so many sides they have time to look at. So you're right - there ARE some topics not touched on at CR - just as there are some topics not touched on at EVERY church. You may place certain topics as a higher priority then others - and that's fine. You're not right or wrong any more then CR is right or wrong. I loved the series on the Fruits of the Spirit last fall. And Pastor Brad's been on Matthew for months and he's only on Chapter 7. I love that. Others will say enough - let's move on.
I think that we - as Christians - have a responsibility for much of our own Spiritual growth. That's one of the things that small groups and coffee shops and blogs and telephones and journals and books are for.
I truly do admire your 'passion' for digging!
humble- as always, you're the man!
excellent points & very true. however, i do believe there are still valid concerns regarding the seeker-sensitive approach. my being a member at CR though, is my biggest statement that i like what's going on here! i was a second time visiter when i heard phil preach on divorce & re-marriage. i was blown away, tears & all. not that i've been divorced, but i know of so many others that have been mis-interpreting the topic to their demise.
Very interesting...I blink my eyes during a busy week and discover 45 comments on a blog I thought was buried. I only have a couple of comments (my musings):
Seeker sensitive: here's what that means at CR--we love people who are spiritually seeking. We think about them often. We try to create an environment where they can feel welcome and we try to speak a language they can understand. Can you imagine a church not being seeker sensitive? A church that quite frankly doesn't give a rip about people far from God? I wonder if you could really call that ____ a church?
One last musing about "deep teaching". The majority of those who want deep teaching have been Christians for "forever". They've been in numerous Bible studies, they have a bunch of Christian books and commentaries. My question: can't they feed themselves? Can't they pull their Bibles and commentaries out and do the work? I'm not trying to be critical...I'm just wondering. Lastly, just what constitutes deep teaching?
Pastor phil -
Thanks for the response! It certainly is appropriate to address apparent visitors & those who are testing the waters when ministering at a church. The concerns raised by myself & others on these blogs however, have been more specific than always just referring to 'deeper teaching'. Also, not everyone who's raised concerns has been accusatory in nature. Some have even left the church because of the seeker sensitive approach. I would think that if the subject surfaces often by many people, it would be worthwhile to take a hard look at the concerns raised. The point has often been brought up regarding our personal responsibility for bible study, to which I've agreed. I could get specific again on how other congregations seem to approach the meeting of all levels of instruction, & I could get specific regarding subjects that I don't believe would be addressed even if there were 10,000 Sundays in a year, but my purpose isn't to be divisive or disrespectful.
My fear of the seeker sensitive approach is not exclusive to you or CR. I believe at the heart, it panders to the religious traditionalists who find themselves here because of family, duty… Those that may not be moved by the Spirit, either at CR or their previous denomination. Meanwhile the rest of us miss hearing the whole council of God with the Holy Ghost & Fire. Again, I'm not trying to be critical, but honest. As I've said throughout my blogging career, I love CR & it's staff. I'm a vested member & I love what's going on here. CR isn't perfect & I wouldn't know perfect if it slapped me in the face, but I believe there's room for improvement. Not for the sake of those that know their way around the bible, but more for those that do not.
Also if I'm wrong, please have patience. Just a few short years ago I would have considered it a huge compromise to belong to any denomination. Using the analogy of church members comprising a body, I'm probably most like an appendix. I'm not very useful, but I can cause trouble from time to time! (Trade Mark, my original)
Much love!
simpatico2 - point taken & appreciated. it was good for me to hear the history again of CR & pastor Phil's contribution. I am truly humbled! I did not mean to offend anyone personally, Pastor Phil or otherwise. the seeker sensitive topic is one that I've wrestled with outside of this forum as well. I find topics like this interesting to debate & I sincerely meant no harm. It's probably about time for me to quiet down on blogging for a bit anyhow. Please except my apology.
Dear Amazed1,
Practically speaking, how easy would it be in one hour a week to meet everyone's needs, from the people who are just opening the Bible through to people who can debate eschatology? I'd suggest it would be impossible, especially for a church growing as fast as ours.
So, the solution? How about a series of classes run during the week for people that want to go deeper? Great idea, in fact so good it's been tried several times over the past 7 years. The problem is that very few people show up. I know this because I helped teach several of these classes with Pastors Steve and Paul. There were _some_ people that showed up, and they enjoyed the classes. However, attendence was too spotty to justify the huge amount of time it took to prepare new Life Development Classes. (If you want to know my criteria for judging this, I'll post again, but for the purpose of moving forward...)
So, what does one do if they are able to stand on their own two feet and walk? Walk. Then eventually run... If I feel that I don't know enough about the Biblical arguments for Calvinism vs Arminianism, I wouldn't expect Pastor Phil to take such a contentious subject and preach on it. I'd grab a book like Across The Spectrum, for example, and learn about it myself.
You may disagree, fine, however one must really look at the implications of what you are asking the Pastoral Staff to do: if they do what you require, then what will they have to stop doing? (I know they are very busy). Alternately, are we ready to hire a dozen teaching pastors to cover all the topics we want to be taught about, at all the levels of readiness that are present in the congregation?
Passionate, about your concerns, maybe I'd like a bit more clarification. Are you asking for more explicit teaching on the Holy Spirit? I think I've picked that up from your posts. Let me know if I'm correct on that, or not. Thanks!
Blessings all...
Passionate,
I'm going back through the posts, and it appears that you would like more wrestling with the harder topics (please correct me if I'm wrong) To modify what I posted above, I think it could be done occasionally (like when Pastor Brad presented the cases for Just War and Christian Pacifism). However, care would have to be taken to avoid:
1) Having people new to the church leaving, scratching their heads, saying "Huh?", and...
2) Having people get wrapped around the axle about some divisive topic.
A couple of years ago, Phil did a series "Hot topics for cold weather", in which he tackled some potentially explosive topics, but in such a way that I left humbled, and more likely to listen to someone on the other side of the topic.
Great job. I don't know when you arrived, and maybe you were here for that series...if not, see if that message series is in the Resource Center, and give it a listen, and let me know if that is what you'd like more of...
Finally, thanks for sharing your struggles in the manner you do.
Blessings...
Amazed1, thanks for your comments and your perspective. I respect you and where you're coming from. Our approach to fulfilling the Great Commission is different--that's OK with me. I love the variety of churches and perspectives. The leadership at CR feels very strongly (we're on our knees a lot) that we are being obedient to God's calling for our church. The CR's of the world are needed just like the church you mentioned in your blog are needed. My prayer is that God will bless us all.
Zach- it's way awesome that you're so pumped for Jesus as a teen! It's also very cool to have you weighing in on the blogs.
I do believe that there's something that you need to understand though, about what folks like amazed, teacher & me say that seems to contradict Christ's clear message of love. For instance, it's fair to say that as christians, we truly cannot love people too much. However, it's equally fair to say that we must know what Christ's love truly is.
You said to amazed that "I'm bad with scriptures". You see, just as 'God is Love', so 'Jesus is the Word'. In His word, he tells us that we are sheep among wolves & that we're not to be deceived by the many false doctrines & teachers that are among us. He also warns us of the 'son of perdition' or 'anti christ' who many will receive as christ. Daniel tells us of the anti-christ that through his policies, he 'by peace shall destroy many' (dan 8:25). Paul tells us that the anti-christ spirit is always at work in the world to deceive & conform the minds of people in order to bring about his plans for world dominion.
I often see a false sense of peace, love, tolerance… that I believe is more anti-christ in nature than Christ, & it seems to creep into the church. This alarms folks like us. Therefore we want to know God, His Word & true Love, in order to correctly represent Him to the lost & to each other. 'Telling the truth in love' can often bring out the same sinful anger in people that wanted Jesus hung on a cross. Sometimes His disciple will get that same response. Shortly after Christ rose from the dead, his disciples were being fed to lions. It wasn't because they were just being big mouths in the name of Christ, but because they were correctly representing Him.
The things I've expressed regarding anti-christ, is a prominent topic in both the old & new testament of the bible, yet there is little to nothing ever said regarding these things in our church. That is some feel compeled to point out that Bono's understanding of love, may not be a perfect representation of Christ's.
Be careful not to be guilty of resenting Christians who endeavor to completely represent the trinity of; God/Word/Love!
Amazed -
I'm sure we're like-minded, in that our intent isn't to personalize this in anyway. For instance, I wouldn't say that CR only teaches peace, love & tolerance. I will say however, that I've questioned the discernment of certain bloggers. I've often thought that some teaching on spiritual warfare could be helpful to them.
Just so we're clear. I don't want to get my little red wagon fixed again!
Anyhow, I would guess that anyone teaching deception would have to be deceived themselves, unless they were overtly evil & in league with satan.
Thanks for staying with this, it's been fun!
Post a Comment
<< Home