Comments on: dealing with religious hostility http://kenwilsononline.com/2009/02/26/dealing-with-religious-hostility/ one step closer Mon, 31 Jan 2011 17:41:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: constance olivia http://kenwilsononline.com/2009/02/26/dealing-with-religious-hostility/comment-page-2/#comment-4514 constance olivia Mon, 04 Oct 2010 23:28:18 +0000 http://kenwilsononline.com/?p=398#comment-4514 love. there are many ways to know the eternal one. as humans struggle to learn about and to understand the nature of divinity, we can liberate ourselves from bondage both of our own making, and from the dogmas set before us. all of creation is divinely inspired. no one day, no one moment, no one perception, or flourish can be more or less divine than any other, as all is one creation. i walk with jesus every moment & once sat on a rock looking out over the wonder of a vast ocean with buddha at my side. i converse with the stars and the trees. i know the spirit that loves All of creation, regardless of sexual orientation, religious creed, or scientific knowledge. heaven is a place inside our hearts. reside there and all is well. love. there are many ways to know the eternal one. as humans struggle to learn about and to understand the nature of divinity, we can liberate ourselves from bondage both of our own making, and from the dogmas set before us. all of creation is divinely inspired. no one day, no one moment, no one perception, or flourish can be more or less divine than any other, as all is one creation. i walk with jesus every moment & once sat on a rock looking out over the wonder of a vast ocean with buddha at my side. i converse with the stars and the trees. i know the spirit that loves All of creation, regardless of sexual orientation, religious creed, or scientific knowledge. heaven is a place inside our hearts. reside there and all is well.

]]> By: Shane http://kenwilsononline.com/2009/02/26/dealing-with-religious-hostility/comment-page-2/#comment-4074 Shane Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:03:10 +0000 http://kenwilsononline.com/?p=398#comment-4074 This is a great discussion, and I am hardly ever thankful enough for the opportunity to be a member of a local church that can have it... in any form. I have been guilty of a critical spirit for sure, and I quickly forget the gains of perspective I have received from Ken and the vineyard as they continually push on to new ground. I also get the frustration folks are presenting from a perceived slippery slope of liberal theology and cultural posture. If you are used to getting the 5 points of Calvinism presented and articulated in propositional form on a regular basis from the pulpit, there seems to be something pretty weighty missing. I know the vineyard is working to bridge the gap, but I do believe some of this anxiety is the price you pay when you are in the process of adjusting your theology to the umpteen thousand pages of NT Wright’s prodigious output that are basically presenting a revised systematic theology of orthodox Christianity for the modern world. There is a lot to swallow, let alone chew on… and some of it may need to be spit out. If I were a member of the Anglican church, I would at least have that framework and heritage to rely on. But jumping into “Vineyardism”, makes for a much more uncertain proposition. Like any evangelical denomination or movement, each church plant has a lot of personal freedom. I would much rather have strong leadership than a slow and cumbersome bureaucracy. And in that assertion, like any good protestant hoping to find a church community in which I can be a pupil and not a critic, it is better for me to answer the question of leadership very early on. Do I trust my pastor, elders, and deacons of this community of believers (or Christ followers, or people oriented towards Christ, or whatever the now acceptable description of a Christian is)? It has been a struggle, but the answer for me is yes. Thank you Ken for holding your ground with humility and backbone. I am not particularly drawn towards scientific explanations of my faith, I feel a bit overwhelmed by that sort of information as is, but it is all good stuff and helps to push back against what seems to be the perennial temptation of enlightened folk, dualism. Folks who approach some of the same issues from a discussion of the arts and philosophy have been my personal solace and guides. Makoto Fujimura would be the latest in this ever expanding resource; his writings will have to suffice for me until I can see his paintings in full light. I think this blog posting and its forthcoming sequel comment on issues of creation / science with balance, grace, and rigor. http://www.makotofujimura.com/writings/refractions-34-the-artist-and-the-beautiful/ This is a great discussion, and I am hardly ever thankful enough for the opportunity to be a member of a local church that can have it… in any form.

I have been guilty of a critical spirit for sure, and I quickly forget the gains of perspective I have received from Ken and the vineyard as they continually push on to new ground.

I also get the frustration folks are presenting from a perceived slippery slope of liberal theology and cultural posture. If you are used to getting the 5 points of Calvinism presented and articulated in propositional form on a regular basis from the pulpit, there seems to be something pretty weighty missing. I know the vineyard is working to bridge the gap, but I do believe some of this anxiety is the price you pay when you are in the process of adjusting your theology to the umpteen thousand pages of NT Wright’s prodigious output that are basically presenting a revised systematic theology of orthodox Christianity for the modern world. There is a lot to swallow, let alone chew on… and some of it may need to be spit out.

If I were a member of the Anglican church, I would at least have that framework and heritage to rely on. But jumping into “Vineyardism”, makes for a much more uncertain proposition. Like any evangelical denomination or movement, each church plant has a lot of personal freedom. I would much rather have strong leadership than a slow and cumbersome bureaucracy. And in that assertion, like any good protestant hoping to find a church community in which I can be a pupil and not a critic, it is better for me to answer the question of leadership very early on.

Do I trust my pastor, elders, and deacons of this community of believers (or Christ followers, or people oriented towards Christ, or whatever the now acceptable description of a Christian is)?

It has been a struggle, but the answer for me is yes.

Thank you Ken for holding your ground with humility and backbone.

I am not particularly drawn towards scientific explanations of my faith, I feel a bit overwhelmed by that sort of information as is, but it is all good stuff and helps to push back against what seems to be the perennial temptation of enlightened folk, dualism.

Folks who approach some of the same issues from a discussion of the arts and philosophy have been my personal solace and guides. Makoto Fujimura would be the latest in this ever expanding resource; his writings will have to suffice for me until I can see his paintings in full light. I think this blog posting and its forthcoming sequel comment on issues of creation / science with balance, grace, and rigor.

http://www.makotofujimura.com/writings/refractions-34-the-artist-and-the-beautiful/

]]> By: ken http://kenwilsononline.com/2009/02/26/dealing-with-religious-hostility/comment-page-2/#comment-2163 ken Tue, 07 Apr 2009 21:14:16 +0000 http://kenwilsononline.com/?p=398#comment-2163 Dave, I think you've misunderstood what I'm trying to say. I don't think creationism is bad. (If by that you mean young earth creationism.) I do think the form of it that claims any other view is wrong-bad is misinformed and damaging to the gospel. I don't think empowered evangelical is bad and secular humanist is good. I think a Jesus approach is more sympathetic than antagonist, though. I don't think global warming denier is bad--I do think the way many of the media outlets that rail against global warming science without being well informed about what it actually is, is misinformed. But these are issues that Christians do and can disagree about. Love God, love people, live for Jesus, keep your focus on the kingdom--now that I can say AMEN too! My aim too! Dave, I think you’ve misunderstood what I’m trying to say. I don’t think creationism is bad. (If by that you mean young earth creationism.) I do think the form of it that claims any other view is wrong-bad is misinformed and damaging to the gospel. I don’t think empowered evangelical is bad and secular humanist is good. I think a Jesus approach is more sympathetic than antagonist, though. I don’t think global warming denier is bad–I do think the way many of the media outlets that rail against global warming science without being well informed about what it actually is, is misinformed. But these are issues that Christians do and can disagree about. Love God, love people, live for Jesus, keep your focus on the kingdom–now that I can say AMEN too! My aim too!

]]> By: Dave http://kenwilsononline.com/2009/02/26/dealing-with-religious-hostility/comment-page-2/#comment-2161 Dave Tue, 07 Apr 2009 20:46:34 +0000 http://kenwilsononline.com/?p=398#comment-2161 Ken, Please help me understand more clearly. Creationist bad, Darwinism Good. Global Warming denier bad, Left Wing Environmentalist Good. Empowered Evangelical Bad, Secular Humanist Good..etc. I guess I just don't understand any of it. It seems we've allowed the definitions and group segmentation of our national politics to define us down to which "camp" of "christianity" we are in. Isn't it really much more simple than that. You are "hostile" towards those you deem to be "hostile". Then all your fans rant and rave about you setting those "ranters" straight. Now you own the argument and your brand of "christianity" wins out - at least in your circle and sphere of influence. I'm just a neophyte here - a guy who probably should have been dead or in jail by now - I just happened to meet Jesus and receive His amazing Grace and have never looked back. No hate here. But, my world view has changed. What I value now is not what I valued when I was "in the world." Love God, Love People, Live for Jesus, and keep the Kingdom my primary focus. That's my "brand" of Christianity. However, I do believe that I have to change and become something that looks radically different than what I was. I have to display (with the direction and power of the Holy Spirit) character traits that aren't naturally mine. Holiness is a worthy pursuit. Wanting to help a pregnant woman perceive and understand that it's not a tissue, but rather an amazing - miraculous - act of creation is a worthy pursuit. Wanting to display the Love of a Heavenly Father to someone whose lifestyle of same sex relationships that is stealing the wholeness of the original divinely designed coupling of a man and women is a worthy pursuit. Wanting to bring the truth that yes one has to change and must "conform" to something different than what they currently are is a worthy pursuit. Not conform to religion or doctrine. But conform to a pursuit - the pursuit of Jesus. The pursuit of becoming just like him and walking in His divine gifts to accomplish our single purpose - be salt and light and help bring people into relationship with Christ. So to the "hostile" author going after the "hostile" ranter, I just don't understand either one of you. Seems to me it should be much simpler than that. In the meantime here is my plan - Just love Him. Walk with the Holy Spirit and listen to Him. Be led by the Word. And obey the Father when directed. Always stand for Truth. And finally Love People! But, then again I'm just a neophyte. Thanks for listening. Ken,

Please help me understand more clearly. Creationist bad, Darwinism Good. Global Warming denier bad, Left Wing Environmentalist Good. Empowered Evangelical Bad, Secular Humanist Good..etc.

I guess I just don’t understand any of it. It seems we’ve allowed the definitions and group segmentation of our national politics to define us down to which “camp” of “christianity” we are in.

Isn’t it really much more simple than that. You are “hostile” towards those you deem to be “hostile”. Then all your fans rant and rave about you setting those “ranters” straight. Now you own the argument and your brand of “christianity” wins out – at least in your circle and sphere of influence.

I’m just a neophyte here – a guy who probably should have been dead or in jail by now – I just happened to meet Jesus and receive His amazing Grace and have never looked back. No hate here. But, my world view has changed. What I value now is not what I valued when I was “in the world.”

Love God, Love People, Live for Jesus, and keep the Kingdom my primary focus. That’s my “brand” of Christianity. However, I do believe that I have to change and become something that looks radically different than what I was. I have to display (with the direction and power of the Holy Spirit) character traits that aren’t naturally mine.

Holiness is a worthy pursuit. Wanting to help a pregnant woman perceive and understand that it’s not a tissue, but rather an amazing – miraculous – act of creation is a worthy pursuit.

Wanting to display the Love of a Heavenly Father to someone whose lifestyle of same sex relationships that is stealing the wholeness of the original divinely designed coupling of a man and women is a worthy pursuit.

Wanting to bring the truth that yes one has to change and must “conform” to something different than what they currently are is a worthy pursuit. Not conform to religion or doctrine. But conform to a pursuit – the pursuit of Jesus. The pursuit of becoming just like him and walking in His divine gifts to accomplish our single purpose – be salt and light and help bring people into relationship with Christ.

So to the “hostile” author going after the “hostile” ranter, I just don’t understand either one of you. Seems to me it should be much simpler than that.

In the meantime here is my plan – Just love Him. Walk with the Holy Spirit and listen to Him. Be led by the Word. And obey the Father when directed. Always stand for Truth. And finally Love People!

But, then again I’m just a neophyte. Thanks for listening.

]]> By: Emily S. http://kenwilsononline.com/2009/02/26/dealing-with-religious-hostility/comment-page-2/#comment-2036 Emily S. Mon, 23 Mar 2009 00:44:01 +0000 http://kenwilsononline.com/?p=398#comment-2036 Thank you, from a young evangelical pastor. Thank you, from a young evangelical pastor.

]]> By: J Lee Harshbarger http://kenwilsononline.com/2009/02/26/dealing-with-religious-hostility/comment-page-2/#comment-1986 J Lee Harshbarger Sun, 15 Mar 2009 22:23:56 +0000 http://kenwilsononline.com/?p=398#comment-1986 Don Bromley #50, you said, "So, how about we Christians focus for a while on the spiritual sins of pride, unforgiveness, hatred, bitterness, envy, and greed. Starting with ourselves. Then maybe we’ll have earned enough credibility to begin speaking about sexual morality. Because right now we have none, and rightly so." I would like to hear from you how you would suggest doing this in the public sphere, in a way that people would notice. The news media love a fight, and they're going to pick the ones spice up the argument. For example, they're always bringing on that hothead Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights, to speak for the religious or conservative side. There are more reasonable and loving people to pick, but they don't create the heat. Or when Kansas took away the requirement to test for macroevolution, originally on a particular news program, the producers had scheduled a representative from the Institute for Creation Research to speak, but at the last minute replaced him with Jerry Falwell. It's not that Christians themselves would not benefit from focusing on repenting from spiritual sins of pride, etc., but how would anyone know Christians are even doing it? It doesn't make for exciting news. Bring on Bill Donahue, Tony Perkins, and Pat Robertson! Don Bromley #50, you said, “So, how about we Christians focus for a while on the spiritual sins of pride, unforgiveness, hatred, bitterness, envy, and greed. Starting with ourselves. Then maybe we’ll have earned enough credibility to begin speaking about sexual morality. Because right now we have none, and rightly so.” I would like to hear from you how you would suggest doing this in the public sphere, in a way that people would notice. The news media love a fight, and they’re going to pick the ones spice up the argument. For example, they’re always bringing on that hothead Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights, to speak for the religious or conservative side. There are more reasonable and loving people to pick, but they don’t create the heat. Or when Kansas took away the requirement to test for macroevolution, originally on a particular news program, the producers had scheduled a representative from the Institute for Creation Research to speak, but at the last minute replaced him with Jerry Falwell.

It’s not that Christians themselves would not benefit from focusing on repenting from spiritual sins of pride, etc., but how would anyone know Christians are even doing it? It doesn’t make for exciting news. Bring on Bill Donahue, Tony Perkins, and Pat Robertson!

]]> By: J Lee Harshbarger http://kenwilsononline.com/2009/02/26/dealing-with-religious-hostility/comment-page-2/#comment-1985 J Lee Harshbarger Sun, 15 Mar 2009 22:14:22 +0000 http://kenwilsononline.com/?p=398#comment-1985 California Kid, I really appreciate your posting at #52. I, too, get frustrated by lack of ability in praying and connecting with God, but I too am done beating myself up about it and am just going to plug away like a turtle. Yes, that's what I've been, a turtle...I've seen so many people much younger in the faith surpass me in depth of experience and spirituality. And Dallas Willard lays on the blame by quoting someone who says the only reason we haven't achieved the deep level of spirituality of some of the great saints is because we haven't set our mind to it. So yeah, I guess I haven't decided with my whole heart to do everything possible to connect with God and be like one of those ancient saints. But until I do decide that, I'm not going to beat myself up for not deciding that. I'm going to plug away as a Turtle For God. Ryan in #54 says, "I am most upset by the trend in Christian literature in always searching for a principle to extract from everything in the Bible." Amen! I hate how many books there are about "principles for living the Christian life" or "seven steps to a more successful prayer life." It reduces Christianity to a how-to methodology. I want to experience a relationship with God, not approach him as the object of principles. California Kid, I really appreciate your posting at #52. I, too, get frustrated by lack of ability in praying and connecting with God, but I too am done beating myself up about it and am just going to plug away like a turtle. Yes, that’s what I’ve been, a turtle…I’ve seen so many people much younger in the faith surpass me in depth of experience and spirituality. And Dallas Willard lays on the blame by quoting someone who says the only reason we haven’t achieved the deep level of spirituality of some of the great saints is because we haven’t set our mind to it. So yeah, I guess I haven’t decided with my whole heart to do everything possible to connect with God and be like one of those ancient saints. But until I do decide that, I’m not going to beat myself up for not deciding that. I’m going to plug away as a Turtle For God.

Ryan in #54 says, “I am most upset by the trend in Christian literature in always searching for a principle to extract from everything in the Bible.” Amen! I hate how many books there are about “principles for living the Christian life” or “seven steps to a more successful prayer life.” It reduces Christianity to a how-to methodology. I want to experience a relationship with God, not approach him as the object of principles.

]]> By: Ryan http://kenwilsononline.com/2009/02/26/dealing-with-religious-hostility/comment-page-2/#comment-1979 Ryan Sat, 14 Mar 2009 06:17:32 +0000 http://kenwilsononline.com/?p=398#comment-1979 ah ok I'm reading you clearly now, gem ... Thanks for clearing that up :) ah ok I’m reading you clearly now, gem … Thanks for clearing that up :)

]]> By: gem http://kenwilsononline.com/2009/02/26/dealing-with-religious-hostility/comment-page-2/#comment-1940 gem Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:08:01 +0000 http://kenwilsononline.com/?p=398#comment-1940 Ryan, I agree 100% with your comments. It was assumed in my point “The entire gospel rests on the mystery of being born again spiritually and eventually physically,” that the person that is born again has received the message of the gospel (i.e., the death, burial, and resurrection). The message obviously stands on its own merit, Jesus in the Son of God, but whether or not it has any merit to the person requires acceptance of the gift provided. So for the mystery and benefit of the gospel to be revealed, requires one to be born again. Ryan, I agree 100% with your comments.

It was assumed in my point “The entire gospel rests on the mystery of being born again spiritually and eventually physically,” that the person that is born again has received the message of the gospel (i.e., the death, burial, and resurrection). The message obviously stands on its own merit, Jesus in the Son of God, but whether or not it has any merit to the person requires acceptance of the gift provided. So for the mystery and benefit of the gospel to be revealed, requires one to be born again.

]]> By: Ryan http://kenwilsononline.com/2009/02/26/dealing-with-religious-hostility/comment-page-2/#comment-1936 Ryan Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:09:37 +0000 http://kenwilsononline.com/?p=398#comment-1936 re: Adam and evolution. I see what you're saying - and it's a really complex thing to consider 'how' we came to be in the image of God. But again, I think the truth of the creation account is in establishing the supremacy of God of every aspect in all things - including us. "The entire gospel rests on the mystery of being born again spiritually and eventually physically." hmmm. I'm going out on a limb to disagree with you on that. Is it one important aspect of Jesus' message? Yes definitely. Jesus tells Nicodemus that he needs to be born again in order to see the kingdom of God, and the kingdom of God is the subject of Jesus' message to the Jews: "the kingdom of god is at hand". Jesus essentially tells Nicodemus that he won't find the kingdom through signs and wonders or as a physical place (ref - Luke 17:21), but rather through a spiritual transformation. If I remember correctly, the Jews believed that the kingdom was a real place that would be established through a military leader who would lead them to ultimate victory over their enemies. From 1 Corinthians 15:1-33, I think Paul is chastising the Corinthians for not living out the gospel he brought to them. He reminds them of the first importance of the gospel in 1 cor 15:3-17 and re-iterates this in v15:13. This is that the whole gospel message hinges on Jesus being who he said he was. If Jesus was not the son of God, then everything is in vain - we labor for nothing, the kingdom is not at hand, there is no resurrection and no salvation, no spiritual re-birth, and no King to follow. What's more, and what is most important is that if Jesus is not the son of God, then the entire bible is worthless. re: Adam and evolution. I see what you’re saying – and it’s a really complex thing to consider ‘how’ we came to be in the image of God. But again, I think the truth of the creation account is in establishing the supremacy of God of every aspect in all things – including us.

“The entire gospel rests on the mystery of being born again spiritually and eventually physically.”

hmmm. I’m going out on a limb to disagree with you on that. Is it one important aspect of Jesus’ message? Yes definitely. Jesus tells Nicodemus that he needs to be born again in order to see the kingdom of God, and the kingdom of God is the subject of Jesus’ message to the Jews: “the kingdom of god is at hand”. Jesus essentially tells Nicodemus that he won’t find the kingdom through signs and wonders or as a physical place (ref – Luke 17:21), but rather through a spiritual transformation. If I remember correctly, the Jews believed that the kingdom was a real place that would be established through a military leader who would lead them to ultimate victory over their enemies.

From 1 Corinthians 15:1-33, I think Paul is chastising the Corinthians for not living out the gospel he brought to them. He reminds them of the first importance of the gospel in 1 cor 15:3-17 and re-iterates this in v15:13. This is that the whole gospel message hinges on Jesus being who he said he was. If Jesus was not the son of God, then everything is in vain – we labor for nothing, the kingdom is not at hand, there is no resurrection and no salvation, no spiritual re-birth, and no King to follow. What’s more, and what is most important is that if Jesus is not the son of God, then the entire bible is worthless.

]]>