Friday, July 21, 2006

more anti-emergent

Steve Camp posts more from Gary Gilley. If this is accurate and in context, I can align with the heresy charge. My concern continues to be whether or not these are in context. I believe the earlier stuff I read from Gilley was out of context. I found him to be very unfair in his criticism. However this article seems more clearly condemning.

I still wonder what the EC guys intend in these statements. As an example, McLaren states, "Does a little dose of Buddhism thrown into a belief system somehow kill off the Christian part? My Buddhist cousin, except for her unfortunate inability to embrace Jesus, is a better “Christian” (based on Jesus’ descriptions of what a Christian does) than almost every Christian I know. If we are using Matthew 26 as a guide, she’d be a sheep; and almost every Christian I know personally would be a goat." This seems to be about how to live the Christian life not about whether or not the cousin is really a Christian while not embracing Christ.

Using Gilley's approach, Christ would have also failed because of the dishonest manager story.

I think the EC guys need to be less ambiguous - especially in prepared statements/writings.

Again, I don't have a strong need to support the EC bunch but the things I have read and listened to (in context) were nothing like the stuff Gilley is coming up with. Everything Gilley has said are things that should concern us and most of what I have read from EC folks makes me nervous (in the sense of the ambiguity) but I think we need to be very careful to represent the real beliefs of those we accuse. As a Vineyard guy, perhaps I am overly sensitive to this but I have been the target of many accusations by people that simply did not understand what was being said or done.

Technorati Tags: ,

1 comment:

steven hamilton said...

again, rick, i agree with what is the context? is asking questions and having a conversation around them worng? this seems to be the heart of the EC - asking questions - and at the heart of most of their ambiguity and controversy. they ask the questions, get part way through a conversation about it, then never really wrap it up. i agree some of their ambiguity concerns me, but by and large i think some questions are answered and some are purposefully left open, which for the most part doesn't bother me. i myself and some friends have often asked the similar questions but often our conclusion or consensus (which because we come to some maybe differentiates us from EC-like stuff) is that the answer is maybe. you have to have Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, but after that how your faith incarnates depends on following The Way...which might look like the Sadhu Sundar Singh - who preached Christ clearly - yet took the robes of a holy man in his culture. or maybe - again as long as Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour - you can take up the Eastern (mainly Buddhist-type) of monastic life that is similar to Western/European-type monstics, except maybe you can practice yoga centered on Jesus or maybe learn martial arts as an enacted prayer of spiritual warfare that looks more dance-like. i'm with dallas willard in saying that the final judgment is in the Father's hands and i'm not about to presume...but i do know that sure way is Jesus and i have to conclude that acting like a christian - but not having Jesus as Lord and Saviour - makes you non-christian as i understand it.

again, as a vineyard guy also, i sympathize in that i think some of the critics are taking things out of context.