Tuesday, December 06, 2005

Evangelicalism and the Coming Kingdom

Warning: Long post to follow

My good friend Becky Tucker has recently added as a subtitle to her blog, "the misadventures and wandering thoughts of a recovering evangelical." To many, I fear this the phrase "recovering evangelical" may resound like the ranting of another twentysomething "emergent" bagging on institutional Christianity. In all honesty, I can't help but connect with it somehow. To many of us "evangelicals" who feel a little duped by the evangelical agenda, I think we might agree that Becky's terminology is quite honestly worded.

How does one even begin to undertake the whole of evangelicalism? How do we define what it means to be an evangelical? Well, I have to say that beyond it's agressive bent toward "evangelizing" the masses in order to make converts (rather than kingdom-centered lives focused on discipleship) I'm prone to stave off further definition. Recently, I asked a friend and co-member of our house church community if he believes Sinners & Saints can be rightfully lumped into an evangelical category. His affirmation that we are indeed evangelicals by nature doesn't leave me with the most comfortable feeling. I understand that we function much differently than your typical evangelical church, but in all honesty...i really don't want to be one. Not because I am opposed to evangelism, but because I think the Evangelical movement has done more harm than good. (Sorry if that stings but I am just being honest.) And I believe it is fair to say (and rather evident) that a number of us are quite bitter towards our evangelical backgrounds. So perhaps much of what we've been taught in our evangelical past can serve as a sort of definition for what evangelicalism truly encompasses.

As mentioned before, the main thrust of evangelicalism is to evangelize. The greatest thing (or so it would seem) to an evangelical is to ensure that as many people as possible make it into heaven. Not a horrible thing mind you, but at best this is shortsighted. As in John 14:6, Jesus states "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no man comes to the Father except through me." This, evangelicals read, as Jesus being the sole deliverer into heaven of anyone who would believe in Him. And this I believe is the foundation for much of evangelicalism's theology.

While I'm pretty sure I believe that Christ is the only means of salvation, I'm also pretty sure that the above interpretation misses the whole of the Christian faith at some point. If we are to accept the premise of saving souls as primary to evangelicalism's theology, then a much clearer understanding of the many peculiarities evangelicals often embrace with their witnessing tools can be better understood. All of the blur surrounding chick tracts, Christian witness wear, pamphlets and street corner preachers suddenly comes into a clearer focus once we understand that they are only trying to secure all of us a ticket into heaven.

Unfortunately, it gets a bit more sticky at this point. I believe somewhere along the Evangelical timeline (circa 1800 and onward) the aganda of "saving souls" surpassed the greater mission of Kingdom living, or the natural proclaimation of the Kingdom of God alive within its members. Instead of fulfilling our "chief and highest purpose" to "glorify God and enjoy Him forever," as the Westminster Catechism proclaims, evangelicalism has sought to glorify man by attempting to save him by use of our own methods. A recent interview I had with Lee Camp perhaps can clarify my point:
    "I think the language of the so-called "Great Commission" fits perfectly what I’m trying to describe: our task is not merely to sell people on some set of intellectual propositions about "faith" and "doctrine" and "religion," as if we have the best religious product on the market. Instead, we are called to make disciples, and in my experience, the market-savvy means we have adopted, in a late-capitalist society may "sell" a lot of people on "Christianity," but does not seem to have all that great a track record at making disciples. "Making
    disciples," if we take Paul’s comments seriously in his correspondence with the Corinthians, is ultimately not something we can manufacture; instead, we are called to be the church, to be the body of Christ, ministering, serving, sharing; and as we plant and water seeds, God will or will not give the growth."

I think this is a beautiful description of what the Christian life should be. But somehow evangelicals think that what truly matters is your belief is foremost correct. If one professes belief in Christ, then this is all that really matters. Sure they often say your Christian lifestyle is important. But in the end, unless your having gay sex, aborting your children, or voting for a democrat, you're pretty much "in" so to speak.

How interesting it is that as long as an individual continually mentions God, and continually talks about how Jesus is working in their life, we seldom care about their participation in the Kingdom. For observations sake, look at how many evangelicals blindly backed George W. Bush for President simply because he cited Jesus as his hero (not referring to those who legitimately researched Bush and then backed him). These same evangelicals seem to care very little that many of his policies stand in stark contrast to principled living in the Kingdom of God.

Even more fascinating is the U2 phenomenon. As their early albums contained a more bold proclaimation of faith, which evangelicals ate up entirely, it seemed Bono and crew could do no wrong. Throw in the controversial Actung Baby, Zooropa and POP, and evangelicals are suddenly pissed off (I was once one of them) that this once great "Christian band" somehow lost their faith or "sold out," simply because their lyrics weren't as bold as they once were, or even because Bono decided to drop an f-bomb here and there during his regular discourse. Now however, since the release of "Walk On" and HTDAAB, evangelicals are back into glorification mode of Bono and the band, because a positive presentation of the Christian faith encompasses their lyrics. But let's face it, aside from Bono's involovement in the "One Campaign" (which is to be applauded, along with his other 3rd World intervention) truly we know very little of U2's personal expressions of faith as it pertains to Kingdom living.

And who can forget Gibson's "Passion of the Christ." A fantastic re-telling of the crucifixion, yet one that had little to with the greater story of redemption, and essentially nothing to do with discipleship. But evangelicals touted this film as the "greatest evangelistic tool of out time." I'm only left to ask what good evangelism is without discipleship?

Truly, the list is impressive, the endless the amount of pop-culture icons evangelicals will readily embrace simply because they mention, emulate or articulate an element or expression of Jesus (read:The Matrix, Ashley Smith and the Purpose-Driven Life, an athlete who points heavenward after he scores, etc.). I believe that because Evangelicals are so primarily focused upon "saving souls," these self-declared signposts of faith in our popular culture are something to them, that just might "plant a seed" in lost soul's heart. Better yet, these signposts might just influence a sinner so much that they will in turn "accept Christ into their heart" and win themselves a trip to heaven when they die. Yes, for evangelicals the ends often justfies the means, especially if that end is a one-way ticket into heaven.

I recall as a budding evangelical, it came to light that a popular Christian comedian named Mike Warnke had effectively lied about his background in the Satanic Church, along with his dramatic conversion to the Christian faith (which incidently made him a lot of money). The big rebuttal which ensued in the aftermath of this little scandal was, "But think of how many people came to Christ through his ministry?" So essentially, as long as people like President Bush, Bono, Mel Gibson, Evander Holyfield, Kirk Cameron and Stephen Baldwin keep talking about Jesus, evangelicals will embrace them. 'Cause you never know where they might "plant a seed." I don't know... It's just odd.

There is so much more that convolutes the whole of Evangelicalism, i fear I haven't the time to list the whole of its short-sightedness. Bear with me as I attempt to do so. In high school & college, among the many things I was taught by one person or another, church leader or friend, pastor or lay leader were the following: Catholics are going to hell; Jesus is coming back to rapture his church; The Bible is innerant and it teaches courtship not dating; women are the "weaker vessel"; the creation account is a fact and evolution is a shoddly concocted system of growth devised by a scientific community who hates God and refuses to accept His salvation; The United States was founded as a Christian nation and liberals who hate God have sunk this country so far from its godly heritage we may never recover from our lowly state of immorality; drinking beer in public might cause someone seeing you to think it is okay to drink, and they in turn might stumble and get drunk, and then it will be your fault; environmentalism at its core is really not too far off from satanism; In the end of all things God is going to destroy the earth, therefore polluting the earth just might bring Christ back that much sooner. (I'm not kidding about this last one.)

I don't blame the people who told me these things. Someone, somewhere along the way, must have taught them similarly, and they in turn we're only doing their best to pass the faith onward to me. But you can see how one might become a bit soured out a bit on this kind of Christian practice, because it is really a backwards practice of our faith. It essentially asks us to get our understanding of the Christian faith in order, that we might better demonstrate what the Christian faith is, that others might see this and want to have some. 'Cause, you know, we're all going to heaven, right? Don't you want a piece of this? Here's a tract explaing the four spiritual laws. Once you understand that you're a sinner, you will recognize your need for Jesus to rid you of your sins, and then you'll go to heaven like us!

Right. I swear, anyone reading this who is not a follower of Christ must think we Christians are jacked in the head.

As I'm learning, however, participation in the Kingdom doesn't require a right knowledge on the whole of Christian History or even the fullness of Christian Theology. One can begin bearing witness to the Kingdom simply by participating in it. And what I mean by participating in the kingdom is this:

     We believe God in the beginning created the universe and called it "good." We believe that somehow mankind messed up this good creation. Since the fall of man, however, God has been interceeding in, and working though mankind, in order to redeem the broken state of things, the greatest redemption being met in the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus (for this is a restoration of life!). We believe at the end of all things God will restore His good creation to its rightful state before it was fallen. If then, we believe that this world was created good and will be restored again from it's fallen state, how much more should we live our lives as faithful testimonies to this restorative life God has designed for us! We participate in His Kingdom then by living lives which declare the life in His Gospel. (See Luke 10 when Jesus sends out the 72 to proclaim the Kingdom of God telling them to heal the sick). These lives we lead encompass and evidence redemption, and declare the life that only God can deliver...these lives ARE our evangelism. A right learning of all else can be met along the way.

The Kingdom is alive among us, and I dream of the time when it will be met in its fullness. May His church have the grace enough to embrace this.

And as a fellow I witnessed just the other night, once sang...

"I want to run
I want to hide
I want to tear down the walls
That hold me inside
I want to reach out
And touch the flame
Where the streets have no name

I want to feel sunlight on my face
I see the dust cloud disappear
Without a trace
I want to take shelter from the poison rain
Where the streets have no name."

May the kingdom come to life. Amen.

28 Comments:

At 7:42 PM, Blogger Dale said...

what good is evangelism without discipleship? None...

remember this...the 'harm' done by evangelism is not a power greater than the power of God...humans cannot cause harm that God can't repair...not a justification, just a warning against villification...

hope that made sense...blessings as always J-dog...thanks for making me think and cry

 
At 8:07 PM, Blogger Dave said...

thanks for the warning at the beginning, this is indeed a long post. much i agree with here. as you said, there are so many short-comings in evangelicalism, where do we begin addressing issues? there are so many people out there i wish would never say that they are evangelical or christian. the evangelical sub-culture is laughable in so many respects. honestly, i don't know that working for one of the largest christian book companies in the world is ever going to give you a positive perspective toward evangelicalism. we have been simply over-saturated with christian shit.

but i will say that you cannot escape the fact that you, and the S&S crew, are evangelical. since you believe the gospel (which is what an evangelical is by definition), i'm afraid there is no escaping that. it sucks, i know.

with regard to U2, we know a lot more about their personal expressions than you may think. there are so many books on and interviews with the band that one can get a pretty good idea where they are coming from; especially with the Bono: Conversations... now out. they are very open about themselves, which is great because it gives a ton of context to their songs.

uhh, the bible does say that the wife/women is the "weaker vessel" (1 Peter 3:7) and i don't really know what you meant by mentioning it. but that's just me.

 
At 8:25 PM, Blogger Mike said...

nice long post zig, welcome to the dark side...(of long posts)

first, evangelical used to mean reformed. it used to mean the solas as opposed to papal authority. it also came to be a contrast with mainline denominations such as presb, meth, etc. that is what the E in Grace E PC meant

so if S&S is reformed then you are evangelical

but today it means not-fundamentalist-republican-middleclass-share the gospel types. if that narrow deffinition fits you folks, then so be it.

but i don't think you have to be evangelical. you don't agree with all the S*** they spread so why would you identify with them?

I don't. They are no longer reformed, they are no longer in adherence with westminster, or dort, or heidelburge so i am no longer an adherent of evangelicalism.

but who cares about labels.

i am reading camps book right now. can't recomend it more.

as far as villification... it is only villification if the acusations are not true... but hey man if the shoe fits. and as far as man not causing harm God can't fix ... then why act in politics muffin? if the "liberals" mess everything up then God can fix it so no need to worry about gay marriage or abortion (i don't but you seem to).

no, screw villification... there comes a point when you have to stand up and prophetically point your finger at the folks who are jacking it all up for the rest of us and tell them to knock it the crapp off.

good post james

 
At 8:59 PM, Blogger james said...

Dale,

Right you are my friend, right you are. God is much bigger than our best and worst. Thanks for saying it.

Dave,

I think you're right. I/we may be a evangelical(s). Though what does your definition that "believing the gospel" say of others denominations of the Christian faith who are not evangelical? Catholic, Anglican, Episcopalian, Eastern Orthodoxy. These all believe the Gospel, though are not evangelical. Can I still live the Gospel and not be an evangelical

On "the weaker vessel." Yes, I used this term specifically to note how certain members of the evangelical church often employ the literal application or "infallibility" of the Scriptures, in order to promote the womans place in the church body, i.e. can't be teachers, can't be leaders, etc...

As members of the Kingdom, I believe the unequal status of women in our culture (and in the church) needs to be restored. This testifies to the how it was in the beginning and how it will be when God will restore all things. The church should also testify to this (as 1 Peter 3:7 notes even notes "equal heirs").

On U2: I'm definitely going to check in with one of the U2 books on the market. I'm actually waiting for the Brazos Press release, One Step Closer. Brazos being one of the best publishers on the Christian market, has yet to disappoint...Unlike Relevant Books...so much potential, and such a let down.

 
At 9:05 PM, Blogger james said...

Sorry there Fletch. My comment was posted only having read the first two comments. Thanks for the background on the origination of the term "Evangelical." It's helpful.

 
At 9:07 PM, Anonymous Landis said...

I've thought about this a bit recently. Great post. I consider myself evangelical (I pronounce it ehvangelical) but not Evangelical (eevangelical). Symantics I guess. But in my head, I know the difference.

 
At 12:44 AM, Blogger Dones said...

Great post, James. It's gonna take me a while to get my head around all of it.

 
At 6:36 AM, Blogger james said...

Look forward to your thoughts, donald.

 
At 10:02 AM, Blogger Dave said...

however you normally define evangelical, like you said, their "main thrust" is to spread the gospel, that would apply to Catholics, Anglicans/Episcopalians, and Eastern Orthodox folks. most Anlicans/Episcopalians are considered evangelical (e.g. N.T. Wright, J.I. Packer, John Stott). i will concede that normally "inerrancy" is tagged into evangelical belief with its sole authority as the guide of the church (to generally weed out Catholics and Orthodox folks).

although i don't care to debate the women in the church issue, are you implying that what Peter and Paul said about women (albeit 1 Timothy 2, 1 Cor. 11, 1 Peter 3) is wrong? i still don't think i'm grasping your view of Scripture. blogging can be such a limited medium, we need to just talk. "infallibility" and "literal interpretation" i don't think should be equated.

 
At 10:49 AM, Blogger james said...

Dave,

Yes, and know that I'm not trying to bait you into some kind of women in the church debate. Just saying that I believe the status of women should be restored to that of equals.

When Paul and Peter wrote their letters I don't think that they were wrong in what they wrote, anymore than what Paul wrote concerning slavery in the NT. Condsider though that slavery (at least in America) has since been abolished. One could construct a biblically justifyable case for slavery with a static reading of the Scriptures. When the hermeneutic of redemption is used in our interpretation however, we understand that slavery should be abolished and slaves be restored to their status as equals among the Kingdom. I believe Paul's theology envisioned some kind of redemptive application when he wrote his letters, as his writings characterizing slavery seemed to hold them in higher status when viewed in contrast to the standard cultural treatment of slaves. I hope that made sense.

I view Paul and Peter's writings on women similarly. The status of women among the members of the Kingdom was viewed in higher regard, than that of the standard view of their time. If we are to read the Scriptures without the redemptive hermenutical lens and apply them statically to our culture today, I think we could just as easily justify slavery for our time.

But the Kingdom alive through God's people today presents a restoration of all things, demonstrating how God created it in the beginning, and testifying to how it will be in the end. Kind of the whole, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Word. Sounds like it's Beer O'Clock. Who's buying?

 
At 11:54 AM, Blogger g13 said...

"our lives are our evangelism." never was a more evangelical comment uttered.

i have suggested that s & s is evangelical because our characteristics (we hold to the trustworthiness of scripture, are serious about social justice, seek to be Christ's compassion and gospel proclamation in this world, we are open and willing associate with all manner of Christians and organizations that further the mission of God, etc.). however, though we evidence many eh-van-gelical characteristics, none of us give a damn about ee-van-gelical culture (a semantic distinction that my buddy Ryan initiated...man, how the ee-van-gelicals hated him). i guess one could say, with more than a little cheek, that we are "in but not of" eh-van-gelicalism.

perhaps a better way to put it would be that we are citizens and proponents of the Kingdom of God. yeah, i like the sound of that.

 
At 12:22 PM, Blogger g13 said...

then again, citizens of the Kingdom of God could easily become another sectarian way of saying "i follow paul," "i follow apollos," or "i follow apollo (cue james brown)," so my latter suggestion might not be the best.

 
At 1:00 PM, Blogger james said...

Perhaps my angst with being categorized as an evangelical is akin to the growing number of Christians who are no longer care to be called "Christian." It's not so much that they're denying their devotion to Christ as Lord, but more that they're simply fed up with what the term "Christian" has come to mean, and who can be considered among their constituants. Personally, I prefer to call myself a "Follower of Christ" rather than a Christian, simply because I think it carries a stronger emphasis on who it is that we follow. But when asked if I am a Christian, i do not deny that I am one. Perhaps I can do this with the term evangelical as well . . . though I'm not sure what else to call it.

 
At 2:19 PM, Blogger junkyardlove said...

I agree with Gentry, that line about our lives being our evangelism really moved me.

 
At 2:40 PM, Blogger Dave said...

my f*cking relatively long response was deleted because my computer froze. but we talked earlier today and it is beer o'clock.

 
At 2:45 PM, Blogger Agent B said...

I really don't know the definitions of words like "evangelism" and "evangelical", and a whole bunch of others, etc. I am pathetically undereducated in that realm.

But I do know there's a human desire to want to "force" people to be like us, etc. And I'm convinced that God can and will "do the changing" in a person if that person lets him.

I saw this clearly in Walter Heidenreich's testimony. He was full fledged, dope doin', commune livin' hippie in the early 70's. He found Jesus during an acid trip gone bad. Yet he continued to live his lifestyle for 6-12 months because the church wouldn't accept him. He slowly, volluntarilly gave up his sins when he discovered these sins were in his way of knowing God more. No human had to force him into a mold.

So...if evangelical means forcing, than count me out.

 
At 5:29 PM, Blogger Samuel said...

Good thoughts James. I definitely agree that getting people to understand discipleship should never be separated from conversion (be it one Friday night at such and such a place, or over the course of several years). One thing that's come up in our demonation (Methodist) that you briefly mentioned is the issue of Scriptural authority. The UMC is struggling with a particular social issue - people in this debate can be divided into those with a strong view of Scriptural authority (containing instructions for life and godliness) or a weaker view of Scripture (holy writings that are obsolete to modern/postmodern individuals.

As a friend said, "I don't agree with the church's stance on homosexuality." Rooted in enlightenment thought and a child of the 60s, the goal would be to love all people and accept them just the way they are. But Scripture calls us to be holy. The disciple needs to be disciplined. Our Christian life is not about indulging each and every desire we might have. We submit ourselves to an authority greater than us - the Lord God. And we know him by reading his word and interpreting it through the Holy Spirit.

All this to say the Scriptural authority is a mark of Evangelicals. Read any mission statement, statement of faith of any institution. If the first thing starts, "We believe the Bible..."
BINGO - Evangelical institution.

 
At 6:15 PM, Blogger james said...

Samwise,

That's definitely an interesting struggle that's hit your church. Personally, (and as you've noted) I don't see how we can label the Bible as obsolete. Tis useful for teaching, and instruction, and really it gives us a great picture of how the Kingdom plays out. I learn this more and more as teach in church every 3 weeks or so.

I think I might fall into Hauerwas' camp though, (as Landis pointed out) in regard to how we treat the Scriptures...

Hauerwas -> " I do not believe, in the Church’s current circumstance, that each person in the Church thereby is given the right to interpret the Scripture . . . Most North American Christians assume that they have a right, if not an obligation, to read the Bible. I challenge that assumption. No task is more important than for the Church to take the Bible out of the hands of individual Christians in North America.

Let us no longer give the Bible to all children when they enter the third grade or whenever their assumed rise to Christian maturity is marked, such as eighth-grade commencements. Let us rather tell them and their parents that they are possessed by habits far too corrupt for them to be encouraged to read the Bible on their own
."

While I don't think the Bible should be kept from us, I think we need to look again at how we treat/revere it's content. And I think we're better off learning about it in a good community of believers.

Thanks for the words Sam. And thanks for the quote Landis!

 
At 8:36 PM, Blogger Mike said...

"While I don't think the Bible should be kept from us, I think we need to look again at how we treat/revere it's content. And I think we're better off learning about it in a good community of believers."

that is the key. learning about it in a good community of believers. I recall what a friend of mine says at the beginning of all his OT classes, "God is and has been creating a holy people for himself."

a people, not individuals with their own pet interpretations, but a community.

i think that is what sets you and i apart from modern-northamerican-eh-vangelicalism: individualism marked by personal prvate religious experiences and accountability to community.

not that you or i do not believe in personal experiences but those experiences are interpreted by the community.

likewise eh-vangelicals would have us all believe the very western and enlightenment paradigm of personal interpretation. i think this is the priesthood of the believer grossly misinterpreted.

there is more here but i will desist

 
At 1:30 PM, Blogger Rick said...

i have been in much agreement with so much of your posting lately but have not commented because by time I read your blog and Gentry's, there are many comments.

I feel I can usually add nothing to the conversation at this point, so I keep silent. But, my silence does not mean I am not engaged.

peace.

Glad you are seeing the light regarding U2.

 
At 3:25 PM, Blogger james said...

Thanks for the word Rick. I've always known you were a reader, regardless of posts or not. Always glad to have your thoughts though.

 
At 1:20 PM, Blogger LeeBob said...

Reading thru the entire post and comments....whew!!! I was prompted to look up the word evangelism, and was surprised to find it was only associated with the Christian faith.

Interesting...so I wondered what it is called when the Dalai Lama speaks, or when any Rabi/Rabbi, Mullah, or even Steve Jobs or Bill Gates speaks?

I always thought that evangelism simply meant that one attempts to advance a particular point of view. So then I went to an online encyclopedia and found that "Evangelism is the preaching of the Christian Gospel, or by extension any other form of preaching or proselytizing". The last part of this definition made me feel better about my original understanding of the word. Then I checked the word origin and found the word evangelist comes from the Koine Greek word εὐάγγελος ("eu-angelos"), meaning bringer of good news....like Steve Jobs?

So it seems that anyone with an opinion or set of beliefs is an evangelist either actively or passively and we cannot avoid it...so if that is true, then it seems to me the question here is not whether a person is an evangelist, but rather what form that evangelism takes. I don't usually post, just got caught up in the questions.

Thanks for the stimulation James. Now back to work.

 
At 11:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you really think that posts like this are helping the Kingdom? I'm one of these evangelicals that you're talking about and I think a lot of the emergent church ideas are great. But it's hard to look past all the negativity that comes along with it. It's not the ideology behind it, but the people behind it. I continually come in contact with people who are part of this movement that are disrespectful and downright nasty towards the mainstream church. I'm just letting you know in all love and sincerity that you're not helping the Kingdom. This divisiveness is only hurting us all. It may be stroking your ego to think, "Yeah, I get it... and all those megachurches and evangelicals are completely out of touch with the world and are really making of fool out of what it means to be a Christian." But you're not helping! Basically I'm saying, get over yourself! Maybe with age and maturity, you'll discover that you don't have all the answers. Bringing down everyone else isn't helping anyone.

 
At 12:22 PM, Blogger james said...

Lee:

Great to hear from you. I think what i like best about your statement is the line "...the question here is not whether a person is an evangelist, but rather what form that evangelism takes." Too true.

Anonymous:

I'd really like to take you seriously, but for starters it's really difficult to do so when you don't leave a name. Second, it would be much easier for me to read your comments in "love and sincereity" if i thought you had actually read this post with some attention to detail. As it stands, all you've essentially done is draw some assupmtions as to who you think i am. So far you have labeled me "emergent" "nasty towards the mainstream church" "stroking my ego" and one who thinks he "has all the answers." Had you read the post with some clarity rather than standing behind a cloak of anonymity, spouting out assumptions as to what I believe, you might realize that I'm really only laying bare a bit of my past, and allowing others to see how I am working through this. Nowhere in this post have I stated that "mainstream churches suck," "emergent is the only way to go," and "check me out I have all the answers." Perhaps you could spend a bit of time perusing some of my previous posts in order to better find what I believe and what issues I'm currently working through, rather than kicking me a charge to "get over myself." You might actully learn a bit about how i feel towards humility and pride.

Do you feel threatened somehow by my candor? Or perhaps that I believe my church past hasn't provided me with the clearest understanding of the Kingdom of God?

Sack up, indentify yourself and let's have a beneficial discussion.

 
At 3:07 PM, Blogger Mike said...

amen.

Anonymous you got james all wrong. i have known the dude for more than a decade and he is none of the things you accused him of.

I agree with james, sounds like you didn't even read the post, just some of the comments.

maybe something here hit on the truth and you are reacting to that but you can't see that so you put all your energy into name calling.

as james said, sack up and name yourself

 
At 3:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James, I'm sorry I offended you and after re-reading my post, I understand where you're coming from. My sincerest appologies. I didn't leave a name because I don't know you and you don't know me. I just happened upon your blog. And to be honest, I'm not in the practice of spending any significant time on the internet, so I doubt I'll be stopping by your blog again. Just an explanation. And after I thought about what I wrote, I decided I won't be posting on anyone's blog again when it comes to something as emotional as this. The point I was trying to make would have come better from someone you know and respect, rather than from some person you don't even know. And I was doing the exact thing that I hate...causing division between Christians. I have read several of your posts and I think Sinners and Saints sounds like a great ministry. Anything that is bringing people to the Lord is what I love. I think my post got so emotional because I think the ministries that I'm involved in are great too....I've seen so many people's lives changed and it's exciting. I guess I got a little defensive of something I love and have invested so much of my life into. Again, I'm sorry and hope that you and your family have a merry Christmas.

 
At 6:20 PM, Blogger james said...

Howdy Anon,

Thanks for the clarification. I do appreciate your apology, and please understand there's no hard feelings. I generally appreciate the criticism if it does come from a named source of some kind, as it is too easy in the blogosphere to hide one's self and throw comments from the peanut gallery, if you know what I mean. Had you given a name (even a nickname of some kind) and mentioned that you are part of such and such church, and then mentioned your points of contention I think it would have been easier to engage in a discussion. That's just my personal preference.

Understand also that I know and have many friends who work in more mainline churches, and I even have a friend who was once part of 'Sinners & Saints' and now works for a large megachurch in the midwest. There is no issue here. I do not believe that house churches are the only means of doing church. It is A way but not the only way. Obviously, I believe there are certain advantages house churches have, otherwise I might not be participating in this way, but I'm sure you feel that the way you do church has its advantages as well. And again, this is totally fine.

Thanks again for you clarification Anon. Is there something else I can call you besides Anon?

peace,

james

 
At 6:54 PM, Blogger Agent B said...

james - good points about home church/mega church.

As much as I'm not a fan of mega churches (or even "micro churches" - 100 member or less), it would be foolish and unrealistic for me to suggest that all megachurches should disband and become house churches.

But my past has proved that my assignment in life cannot be fullfilled within a megachurch context.

It's good to know that people like your friend feel called to them. I'm sure he/she is needed. Thanks for sharing.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home