One thing I have never wanted to become on this blog is someone who goes around arguing with other people's theology. Not that I don't have disagreements with people; I could spend a lot of time critiquing guys like Mark Driscoll, but what comes of it? First you're giving airtime, and second, I think when your "ministry" becomes nothing more than critiquing other "ministries" ... at some point you just become a jerk.However, sometimes when I get hit with a broad brush, I feel the need to raise my hand and say, "Excuse me!?"
In a recent interview, John MacArthur said (amongst other self-serving statements) "the underlying bottom line of this whole emerging movement is they don’t believe in any doctrine, they don’t believe in any theology. They don’t want to be forced to interpret anything in scripture a certain way..."
As I said... at some point you just become ... well, you get the idea. Ignoring the title emergent for a moment, John basically states that anyone who doesn't buy HIS doctrine or theology doesn't believe ANY doctrine or theology. In fact, since I don't see it his way...I (according to him) am not a Christian.
I believe and follow plenty of doctrine and theology John. I just don't believe or follow yours.
7 comments:
**I could spend a lot of time critiquing guys like Mark Driscoll, but what comes of it?**
You get an immediate sense of satisfaction in showing people how right you are? ;)
I love it when any person, like Mr. MacArthur, speaks so confidently about the beliefs of groups he's not a part of.
We don't always agree, Andrew, but we do on this one. I have this picture in my mind of heaven and a whole bunch of folks like this guy standing amazed that so many people, that they so sanctimoniously criticized, are standing beside them.
"In my house are many mansions . . . "
Amen to that.
Come on Andrew, he is not talking about everyone he is talking "emerging" (at least in the quote you use) and there is a difference in emergent and emerging.
"Ignoring the title emergent for a moment, John basically states that anyone who doesn't buy HIS doctrine or theology doesn't believe ANY doctrine or theology. In fact, since I don't see it his way...I (according to him) am not a Christian."
What if I start taking words out of your quotes so I can apply them to any thing I want. Would you like that?
And no I do not always buy into everything John M. says.
TPC10 - Welcome and thanks for commenting.
I really don't believe I took John out of context. As I go back and read over the article, it is apparent that John has a very dualistic view of reality. His translation seems to go like this:
I am a Christian and theology follows A-B-C; person X's theology does not follow A-B-C, so therefore person X is not a Christian.
Rather than simply saying that he doesn't like someone else's way of interpreting scripture or that he cannot agree with their conclusions; he feels the need to label who and who is not a Christian. This puts him in the position of accuser; a place I believe a Christian should rarely, if ever, position themselves.
Andrew, Thanks for the quick reply. It is refreshing to have someone actually respond quickly to a comment.(realizing that we are all busy as a hamster on the wheel---the rat race)
Since you would disagree with John's ABC's of Theology how would you --in your interpretation of Scripture-- define a Christian?
In other words what is it that causes/makes/allows someone to be a Christian?
One definition that has stuck with me over the years was given by the late Keith Green: "A Christian is someone who is bananas for Jesus". I think it goes a little broader than that, but I like the feel for what he said.
I tend to agree with Lewis who felt that he would rather assume that someone is a poor Christian than not a Christian... those judgments best being left to God. Though I would rather not even use those terms. If anything I would, as I suggested above, deal with what issues or conclusions I disagree with, rather than trying to label someone.
It seems to me that if someone says they are trying to follow the ways of Jesus... what else is there to say? Beyond that, I would have to question what my need is to make a judgment on that.
I remember a christian musician I used to see when I was younger. He preached half of his concert. I noticed over the years that he seemed to impact the young believer, the unbeliever, and us oldies alike. I think Christ is timeless and when his message and ways are preached in humility - it is of benefit to all hearing. In such a case, whether someone is in the faith or out of the faith is of little consequence.
Our tendency to want to group people as "in our out" is something that I believe is a detriment to the church and humanity as a whole. I think Dr. Seuss gave a great commentary on the human condition when he wrote "The Sneetches"
Sorry, short question - long answer.
Post a Comment