Publicity Anonymity (or, Stuck in the Middle with You...)
UPDATE 2/23/07: A lot of people have been coming to this blog post from "SBC OUTPOST" since yesterday. But I think most of those people would actually be more interested in reading the post that Roger Moran quoted in his diatribe: The Sound of the Underground. One other thing... although The Core is not SBC affiliated, it is something we are exploring. So it's not as if this controversy has no bearing on us whatsoever. Thank you.
On the blog SBC OUTPOST, Marty Duren writes about a steaming rampage by Missouri Baptist Convention layman and resident hot-head, Roger Moran. You can read it here (it's received 98 comments so far.)
One of our [1] new pro-alcohol [2] emerging [3] church plants in Springfield, MO recently offered to those making a contribution to their church a copy of Brian McLaren [4], the undisputed leader of the far-left wing of the emerging church movement. [5] McLaren is best known for his statements calling for a 5 to 10 year “moratorium” on any “pronouncements” against homosexuality and his statement rejecting the substitutionary atonement of Christ. [6]
On the website [7] of this new church plant in Missouri, the pastor bashes the name “Christian” [8] stating that he doesn’t want to become “known as a bad tipper, judgmental jerk, or a nationalist warmonger.” He concludes by stating:
"By that token, I believe Jesus would be a terrible Christian. I wouldn’t be surprised one bit if he chose never to show up in church on Sunday, or had a beer at a frat party, or frequented a gay bookstore. And you know what the Christians would say? 'This man doesn’t honor the Sabbath' or 'This man hangs out with sinners.'” [9][1] The word "our" is incorrect, asserting that The Core is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, or Missouri Baptist Convention, which it clearly is not.
[2] The Core is not pro-alcohol, and has made no statement to that effect. My comments that he quotes further on down, about Jesus and alcohol, do not advocate drinking. And even if they did, a sentence in a blog does not an official position make.
[3] I have used the word "emerging" occasionally, but never in direct reference to The Core. It is not entirely unfair to characterize us this way, but it is far from objective, or official, and is essentially meaningless.
[4] If we were able to give out "copies of Brian McLaren" we would certainly be deserving of rebuke for having cloned a human being. Incidentally, you'll notice that Mr. Moran is deliberately omitting specific references, leaving out my name, the name of my blog, the name of our church, and the title of Brian McLaren's book in question, in order to avoid accountability for his rhetoric. The title of the book is "More Ready Than You Realize." I have to confess that I am aware of McLaren's reputation, and have only read this one book of his. But I can imagine very few mentally stable Christians who would object to anything contained therein.
[5] This whole statement is silly. It is impossible to tell what he means by "far left wing of the emerging church movement" and even if it wasn't, there is no way McLaren is the "undisputed leader" of it.
[6] McLaren has since apologized for the homosexuality comment, and the substitutionary atonement comment is unsubstantiated. (I am not trying to defend McLaren; I am just striving for accuracy.)
[7] Moran is not quoting from our website, he is quoting from my blog. This distinction may seem trivial, but it is not. Statements on a church's official website are much more authoritative about the character of that church, whereas a pastor's blog is often used as a sounding board to create dialog (at least that's what mine is for.)
[8] I am not "bashing the name 'Christian'" in the blog post in question (The Sound of the Underground.) I am "bashing" (if that word must be used) what we Christians have made of it.
[9] I stand by this statement of mine. The key phrase is "I would not be one bit surprised if..." By that I mean that I am not confident that Jesus would do these things, but I am confident that it's possible. In regards to the gay bookstore, a reading of the comments following said blog post will reveal that I don't believe Jesus would be their best customer, or start slapping people on the back and congratulating them for their gayness. But I am convinced that Jesus would be where the "people" are. And by "people" I mean, those who are most open to Him. This would preclude the legalists who have decided in advance that the Messiah is going to look and act just like them.
I was going to say more about all this, but I think that'll have to do for now. Let me just finish this off by recognizing that Mr. Moran does not speak for the SBC or the MBC as a whole, and I would frankly be a little surprised (and saddened) if they take him seriously.
Posted at 11:27 AM
View 39 comments made so far
Add a comment
Links to this post
39 Comments:
Let's hope that most everyone who matters in the convention read's Marty's commentary on Moran. If they do, there won't be much of a problem.
I am proud to see all these things coming about. If it were not for insults, offended peoples or opposition it would be difficult to know that this is something the evil one does not want to happen. When we forget that we are to become like Yeshua (Jesus)and that He is not to be made into our image our walk with Him becomes something altogether different than it was ever meant to be. I wonder how Mr. Moran would respond to a question like, "do you you know your savior is a Jew?" Keep up the gospel, and know above all that God Loves you. Without that, nothing else has significance.
-Brendon
Right on, bro.
Ryan,
Thanks for posting this and setting the record straight.
I wish I would have discovered your church when I lived in Springfield... I certainly like what I see.
May God bless your efforts in reaching people with the hope of Jesus!
The established church is threatened by change. They want to keep the status quo.
But most Believers are not afraid of new ideas because we are living in the beginning of the Messianic Age ~ the Age of Enlightenment.
God isn’t about the status quo or getting stuck in the past. God is about “Rocking the Boat” until we finally understand and get it right.
So if old-world Leaders in the Church are afraid of the CORE, they should be.
Controversy is a healthy thing and a good sign. It means that Christ is moving and the enemy of Christ is scared. A good debate forces the establishment to re-think antiquated, judgmental and false beliefs and ideas.
Even with God, the only “constant is change”. In the Scriptures, God changed His omnipotent mind, (relative to His People) on many occasions.
Well at least it was funny. I really did find it entertaining. Thank you, Mr. Moran. You are very credible.
One more thing, I don't really think we worry about this. Why pay attention to it. I'm not here to debate or to be something (like an emergent church)it is just a waste of time. We pay too much attention to these distracting controversies (especially when it specifically concerns us) and we become more about The Core, "our" philosophy etc. That obviously isn't what we are about. Christ is what we are about. I don't have time to worry about all this Pharisee garbage. There are lost souls out there that need Christ. Christ doesn't like homosexuality but I am dang sure he loves that sinner just like he loves Mr. Moran, a sinner. It is good to point out what happened and clarify our position but no need to prove ourselves to anyone. Mr. Moran has not spoken to any of The Core's leaders to my knowledge. If he wants to do that fine. In the mean time, let's not waste our time paying attention to him and instead lets consider the sobering reality that someone is dying and going to Hell today. Mr. Moran you are welcome to email any of our The Core's leaders to set up a meeting but please stop wasting Christ's time.
no - i think its great you have posted this ryan. we believe in truth and we need to made a stand for what is true and right and accurate and honest.
its a real help to know the real story.
I concur, I think that is obvious from my last statement. I just don't think we focus on it or waste our time with it any further. We spend way too much time fighting instead of being Christ to others.
My dear Phillip & Andrew (2 of my 12 disciples... ha!)
You both make very important points.
1) We should not worry about this controversy, or try to entangle ourselves further. We'll leave the saber-rattling to Major Moran, and do our best to be about the work of the Kingdom.
2) However, it is important to share the true story with those who have been lied to. It is not about defending The Core, or even about defending the gospel (Jesus has been doing that pretty well for a long time now.) It is about being good stewards of the truth we've been given, and doing our part to keep the dialogue accurate, civil and objective.
Thanks to you both.
I completely agree.
Amen, and amen.
Ryan:
Regarding The Core's connection as one of "ours", did you change that section of your post from yesterday?
I saw the "update" section, but read yesterday your admission of receiving "training" from some MBC guys. That's not there anymore. Why'd you delete it?
I thought The Core was based out of Second Baptist Church, Springfield. Did you have office space there? If so, was that just them being a "good neighbor" but no official MBC connection?
Did you or The Core ever receive any money from the MBC or NAMB?
I look forward to these clarifications. They could explain why Moran referred to it as "our".
I tried to respond to your questions an hour ago, but for some reason my comment did not post. So here we go again...
Although there are facts that might lead a person to believe The Core is affiliated with the SBC, there is certainly not enough to be conclusive. Nevertheless, here are those facts:
1) We did receive church-planting training from the Missouri Baptist Convention at one point, as we explored the idea of affiliating (which we are still considering.) This information was never contained on this post. It was actually mentioned elsewhere by Matt, a co-founder of The Core.
2) We receive monthly financial support from an SBC church, simply because they believe in what we're doing. We have a great relationship with Second Baptist who, although they have not made any financial support commitments to us, is very generous with their help and their resources. We also borrow a room at First Baptist, where we hold our weekly "brunch gatherings." None of these relationships imply affiliation, just good will.
3) Since I do not receive pay from The Core, I must have a day job. That job happens to be for Second Baptist, as a graphic designer and arts assistant.
Despite these things, we have never received money directly from the SBC, MBC, or any agency thereof. Our financial support has only come from individual people, and individual churches. Also, we have never borrowed money from anyone, or received money "with strings attached."
Thank you, Rod, for giving me an opportunity to clarify things a bit further.
Ryan:
Thanks for your clarification (and correction). I appreciate your time and kindness and transparency in responding.
These are times of frustration...I have them from a more "traditional" perspective. I can only imagine your frustrations as a church planter.
Sundays are always (actually, that should read "usually") refreshing...when we retreat from the broader, universal church with all of its divisions and savor the Savior with our local (more unified) church.
I find a lot of merit in what Moran has said. Where is holiness??? Why does your church act like the world? The fact that we are Christians (like Christ) means that we are not like the world at all. We are to be holy. To be holy is to be different. The more we are different, the more the world will take notice. Most people who call themselves Christians are not holy. They have sex, look at porn, do not work hard, and simply look like the world. Your church seems to say that is ok, you can be cool and Christian. To be Christian is to be despised by the world. The praise of the lost shows we are not convicting them with the righteousness of God. I fear the world would applaud your church. Christ said his church would be persecuted. I want to reach people, but at the end of the day people must look like Christ, be holy. Scripture clearly says that without holiness we will not see God. Thus we must be holy by the power of the Spirit, or we will be thrown into the pits of hell. Build with gold, silver, and the like, and stay away from the wood, hay, and other such worthless materials. All our work will be judged by God, and those who do not teach the truth will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. Be great, be holy! and teach others to do the same!
Bob,
I will refer to The Core as we, although I am no longer a part, because God called us away and to seminary in Chicago. But I helped birth it, and Ryan and I hashed out the "foundation" (i use that term very lightly... Jesus is the foundation) together, so I'm going to say "we".
The Core does not simply try to blend into the world in order to reach the world. But before I say anything else, I need to point out that your comments are heavily dependent upon theological conclusions that are hotly debated amongst even the most conservative evangelicals. It's the classic question of "How far do you go to 'be all things to all men that by all means you might win some'? (to quote Paul)" And it's not a clear line. In fact, Paul himself blurred the line, forbidding some Gentiles to be circumcised and insisting that other Gentiles do so. I don't think a big theology debate would be helpful right now, but I thought I should clarify that.
You see, The Core ministers missionally (Ed Stetzer recently gave an excellent explanation of this last week at the Baptist Identity Conference. Transcript here.), which means we are committed to minister in ways that actually speak the language of the lost and unchurched Christians (there are more out there than you think). This is in stark distinction from the majority of churches, whether they be traditional or "contemporary". You wouldn't go to India and expect to speak English to them and sing Shout to the Lord, would you? Not unless you haven't a clue about evangelism. Missionaries are missional, because they fit themselves, insofar as they remain obedient to Christ, into the mold of the people they are sent to reach. No, they do not take up Buddhism to reach Buddhists, but they talk of Christianity in terms that Buddhists would be familiar with. The "terms" that urban dwellers, artists, college students, Bohemians, hippies and the like speak are nighttime, bars, coffee shops, music venues, art, folk, rock, blues, hip hop, fashion, just to name a few. A "home missionary" recognizes this and embraces it as part of his culture, being careful not to sin inside of it. For example, spending time in a bar while not getting intoxicated.
Again, this topic has been beaten long after it was dead, and will continue to be beaten until everyone who's grips are clenched to the old machine are loosened and they retire or give up (and I'm not singling out pastors. More often than not, it's big-check-writing church members, board members, and deacons that are the problem).
But where I agree with you 110%, Bob, is that above all the Church is called to be holy, set apart, distinct from the world. The big question is, In what ways? Well, the first and most vital way is by our extravagant love, for one another and for the lost. But this still isn't enough. We have to refrain from ungodliness as well. But what is ungodliness? Is socializing with wild partiers, hippies and homosexuals ungodliness? Then I'm afraid Jesus was ungodly. Oh, and if you're drawing from Moran's comment about us being "pro-alcohol, pro-homosexuality, blah blah blah", then you need to check his facts, because he has none. We are pro-drunks, pro-humans who struggle with homo/bi/transsexuality, pro-potheads, you name it. Is it the healthy who need a doctor? Enough said.
Holiness is how we act in the midst of a sinful culture, not a retreat from it.
It's guys like Moran who would hold the robes as the crowd stoned Stephen.
It's guys like Moran who make converting the world ten times harder than it should be.
It's guys like Moran who indeed would say, "This man doesn't honor the Sabbath," and "This man dines with publicans and sinners."
That being said, let me lay my anger down now and share a song I wrote following a similar circumstance. Called ,Long Float, I'd love to come play it for you sometime.
I'm beggin' a pardon for some brothers and sisters
Been hurtin’ you - said they's doin’ God’s will
They went about it all wrong
But you know they meant well
They’re fanatics for a reason
They’ve seen him
Forgive – Forgive – Forgive – Forgive
But we don’t fit that little fellowship clique
It’s enough to make you sick
Can’t pledge to the building program
or dedicate a brick
Yeah it’s a long float, Lord, to you
The River’s wide
Get inside
Princess - Proud – Player – Poor
We’re the kind he came here for
He’s cool
He said so are you
And yeah, do to everybody
Like you want them do to you
I know who I’m talkin’ to
The excluded multitudes
And that includes you
Forgive – Forgive – Forgive - Forgive
Forgive – Forgive – Forgive – Forgive
Aw, it’s a long float, Lord, to you
I’ll look back from the Delta
I’ll see what you wanted to do
And on the banks stood -
the chosen few
The River’s wide
Get inside
But you got your pride
so do I
He said, "come on let that die"
Or we can trade slaps again
And it never ends
Forgive – Forgive – Forgive – Forgive
Forgive – Forgive – Forgive – Forgive
Yeah, it’s a long float, Lord, to you
I’ll look back from the Delta
I'll see what you wanted to do
And on the banks stood -
the chosen few
The River’s wide
Get inside
Forgive – Forgive – Forgive – Forgive
Forgive – Forgive – Forgive – Forgive
I would love to hear that song, jetpacks... is it on the web anywhere?
Bob... since Beloved has given such a beautiful answer to your challenge, I will not try to add to it (although I do want to make sure we all understand that when beloved says we are pro-drunk, etc, etc, he is saying that we strive to love connect with hurting people... not that we condone anyone's sinful lifestyle.)
I would simply like to ask Bob a few questions.
What is it about The Core that makes you think we act like the world?
You say that most Christians act like the world. The specific examples you give are: 1) having sex, 2) looking at porn, and 3) not working hard. Well, it should go on record that we at The Core are in favor of having sex. In fact, we believe it's practically mandatory with your spouse. But you'll be happy to know that we are completely against pornography of every type, and I believe we are as hard-working as anyone else.
This begs the question... Have you learned some true fact about us that makes you suspicious of our methods? Or is your comment just a diatribe against a general trend that you have come to associate us with?
Let me finish by saying what I often say: It is true that the gospel is an offense to the unregenerate heart. But as Christians, we often turn people away in disgust before they have a chance to be offended by the gospel. Let us strive for holiness, yes. But let us strive for holiness as GOD defines it, and not merely comply with the expectations of a "Christian" sub-culture.
I would love to hear that song, jetpacks... is it on the web anywhere?
Bob... since Beloved has given such a beautiful answer to your challenge, I will not try to add to it (although I do want to make sure we all understand that when beloved says we are pro-drunk, etc, etc, he is saying that we strive to love and connect with hurting people... not that we condone anyone's sinful lifestyle.)
I would simply like to ask Bob a few questions.
What is it about The Core that makes you think we act like the world?
You say that most Christians act like the world. The specific examples you give are: 1) having sex, 2) looking at porn, and 3) not working hard. Well, it should go on record that we at The Core are in favor of having sex. In fact, we believe it's practically mandatory with your spouse (and prohibited with all others, of course.) But you'll be happy to know that we are completely against pornography of every type, and I believe we are as hard-working as anyone else.
This begs the question... Have you learned some true fact about us that makes you suspicious of our methods? Or is your comment just a diatribe against a general trend that you have come to associate us with?
Let me finish by saying what I often say: It is true that the gospel is an offense to the unregenerate heart. But as Christians, we often turn people away in disgust before they have a chance to be offended by the gospel. Let us strive for holiness, yes. But let us strive for holiness as GOD defines it, and not merely comply with the expectations of a "Christian" sub-culture.
4:59 PM
No, sir. Not yet. Some day, in faith.
Bob,
Where does our church say that acting like the world is ok? Please give a reference to that. Bob, I don't know where you get that from? I for one, strive not to be a part of the world but I try to touch the world. I try to be Christ to the world. That is quite the accusation which I don't get it's backing. Please let me know or send me an email. Truly baffled and I fear you might be making assumptions.
Phillip
I have seen many emergent churches and am not impressed. I see foul language used regularly, even though the Bible says use "clean speach." I see people who do not work hard, but are rather busybodies (2 Thess. 3). Tattoos are had by many, even though the Old Testament forbids such practices. I know many will say the New Covenant is different, but Christ came to fulfill the law. How does Christ fulfill "Thou shalt not kill, steal, covet, etc." . . . well by expecting us to not kill, steal, covet, etc. How does Christ fulfill the commandment for no tatoos? By New Covenant people not getting tagged. Many of the emergent churches I have had contact with do not teach the Bible well. Most members have not even read the entire Bible. I see few healthy families at emergent churches. This is a natural byproduct of a sound church. I have no problem with going to where the lost people are, nor do I have a problem with alcohol, just people getting drunk. I am sure that if you are honest, you will see that there is some merit to my points. To say I assume to much is not fair, you yourselves have called your church emergent. Labels have meanings, and I have taken you at your word. I am not out for a fight, I just want to make you think. Sometimes the voice of God is heard in the criticism of our enemies. Yet Moran is not your enemy, he is your brother in Christ. Look at what he says, you may find merit there. He is human and will be wrong sometimes, but Christian leaders are rarely wrong about everything. You guys reach people well, but the goal is discipleship. We are called to make disciples, not simply converts through baptism. Those who quit go to hell (Matt. 24:13). Students look like their teacher, and if our teacher is Christ, then we and our church will look like Him. Lastly, I think we can all agree that the red hot night was unwise. Even to the world this sounds risque.
Tattoos forbidden in the OT? Yes, so are shrimp and pork. And let's not forget that Paul said a woman's head must be covered in church at all times.
I am not "emergent," but I can smell among the old guard a fear of the "emerging" churches. If it's new, if it's different, if it's not classic old fashioned fundamental Baptist, it's not of God. You guys still think speaking in tongues is of the Devil? Yeah...thought so. That's what the Devil wants you to think.
Why does a Moran, or his apologists, get to hold the title of "Wise Brother," calling everthing they see into account? I think it can work both ways, Bob, and if you will judge a man or a woman by his or her tattoos, you've got a lot to learn about being a disciple.
And no, I do not have a tattoo.
Yar,
A vast majority of the church, going back in history, agrees with me on tattoos. You are in a very small minority of the saints. That does not mean that you are wrong, but it does mean you should be a little more humble with your position.
Women wore hats in the past in order to make sure they obeyed the Bible, but many think long hair covers the head and this is what Paul was talking about (2 Cor. 11:15). I am curious what you do with the passage. Do you dismiss it out of hand, or do you believe that this is the word of God, good for your own instruction?
I am not against tongues, but I do believe all tongues are intelligible foreign languages. 1 Cor. 14:13-15 clearly says that those who speak in tongues should understand what they are saying with their minds. The tongues you speak of the speaker does not understand what he is saying. This is against the Bible. Tongues (foreign languages) are to be used to reach the whole world. Tongues that cannot be spoken again because the speaker has no idea what has just been said is not biblical. All languages can be diagramed. Even the interpretors (your idea of interpretors) of these weird languages cannot repeat what they have just heard. THis shows that their interpretation is not from the tongue spoken at all, but rather from their own heart. This is not biblical tongues.
Not all of us Bible thumpers are dumb, and some of us are nice guys. :) We take the commands of kindness seriously. This is what a true fundy does. lol Thanks for the exchange.
Because I am in the minority I should be more humble in my position? Interesting, Bob.
As for the scripture quoted, of course it is good for my instruction, but I hope you aren't calling someone a false prophet or servant of Satan based on a tattoo, a drink of alcohol, a dance or anything else you are looking at on the outside.
None of us have "heart goggles," and we can't know what makes a man set up a church in a new place, or hold a service in a way completely different from what we may know. He may not even call it a service.
No one caled you dumb, Bob. What I object to is the way in which some members of the Body make it their personal duty to decide what is godly and what is not, and which part of the Body is not performing to another's liking. As for the command of kindness, someone can be "kind" all day long, but that won't make their judgements any more absolute.
There is a pride evident in this approach and I contend that spiritual pride stinks just as much to God as gay pride, national pride or pride of self.
Follow up:
Bob, this started with tattoos.
Let me clarify: I do not have a tattoo and personally wonder why anyone would want to do that to their body. My children will NEVER be alowed to get tattoos. If they grow up and decide they want one, I won't like it.
But while I personally dislike body art, I'm not going to reject a tattooed person based on that tattoo. Nor will I consider them unqualified to be a vocational minister.
Long hair on men? Makeup on women? Pierced ears, noses, lips? Is there really a guideline, a uniform, a way we should all look?
Bob...
There is certainly value in any discussion of the emerging/emergent church, and whether the methods used are wise/unwise, or righteous/sinful. So don't let me knock you for bringing it up.
However, I must point out that The Core has never deliberately identified itself as "emerging" and certainly not as "emergent". The closest we've ever come is when I off-handedly referred to myself and others who think like me as "we emerging folks" in a blog.
You must understand that the word "emergent" specifically refers to those belonging to the "Emergent Village" a group associated with Brian McLaren, and others. Because this is a specific reference, it is easy to prove that we are not part of it.
As far as the word "emerging" all I can say is that we share a lot in common with those who willfully use this moniker. However, the word is so vague that we do not chose to use it to identify ourselves. This is important, because this forces you to evaluate The Core based on actual facts about The Core, and not based on what you know about other churches or ministries.
Keep up the good discussion, but be careful to withhold judgment from those who remain fairly unknown, and not to carelessly lump people (or churches) together.
Bob,
I believe Mr. Moran is my brother in Christ, and that is all the more reason it was disturbing and truly disappointing he personally attacked a group of brothers and sisters I am a part of with out merit. Same thing for you. Your attack was without merit and without understanding who the people that participate in The Core are. I found Mr. Moran's and your attacks so disappointing because we weren't being attacked by the world but we were being attacked by our own family.
As far as Ryan's personal BLOG that is not a statement for The Core. Ryan is The Core's pastor but I can guarantee you he does not have an arrogant view, he does the BLOG for discussion. His BLOGs represent exactly that, his BLOGs. They are his thoughts and what he feels convicted about. I appreciate his opinions and thoughts but just with anyone we don't agree 100% on everything. Just like if you wrote a BLOG the only person that would completely agree with you is yourself.
The misunderstanding here is very easy to understand. What isn't easy is how leaders can attack their brothers and sisters from miles away without trying to obtain the full info. If Mr. Moran had a problem with us he should of come to us. Instead we were attacked publicly. It was inappropriate, that is the bottom line. I don't know Mr. Moran, but like you said, he makes mistakes. The problem is that those mistakes must be recognized when confronted. Have they been? Have they been for you?
I've heard a lot about the so-called Biblical forbiddance on tattoes, but never once have I seen the scripture. Oh, I've read the one about not "cutting yourself for the dead", but who's fooling who that this has any relation to or implication for tattoeing? Some tats are over the top, and it's obvious when people are simply unhappy with the way God created them. If they were happy, they wouldn't cover themselves with ink; nor would they stretch holes in their ears to the size of bottle caps. Intentionally drawing attention to oneself by ones external appearance is a sin, because vanity is a sin. But that goes for anyone obsessed with fashion or expensive suits or fancy cars. These are also a terrible investment of one's God-given financial blessings. But I'd still like to know where the Bible explicitly condemns tattoeing.
Also, Bob (and the other 10 million conservatives out there who follow this line of reasoning), you'll have a difficult time making the argument that because Jesus came to "fulfill the Law" that every iota of the ordinances and commands of the OT are applicable today. The first and most obvious one that has been completely and utterly transplanted by the New Covenant is animal sacrifice. And with it the entire system of Temple worship and all its acoutrements. So you have to recognize that there are different types of "law". Jesus came to fulfill prophecy, and to fulfill the ten commandments, enabling us to be counted righteous as if we had obeyed them perfectly, although we had not. You and the others who bind Christians to OT commands such as the tithe are distorting scripture and teetering on the edge of propagating a false Gospel. I'm not saying you have been intentionally deceiving people, but you're aware of it now, or at least you're aware that it's not so cut and dried as you supposed.
Love you, brothers and sisters.
beloved,
Leviticus 19:28 is the passage you are looking for about tatoos. On another topic, Hebrews 10:1 speaks about the law being a shadow of the good things to come. Everything in the old covenant foreshadows the new covenant. Every single law in the OT must be looked at to see how it points to the new covenant. This is why people like myself argue that titheing is still appropriate. God's law in the OT outlined a principle that should not be ignored. Your theological system simple dismisses these old laws as antiques, but Hebrews teaches that every law points to the New Covenant. What does the tithing law tell us about the New Covenant. Well. . . the norm of giving is 10%. The Old Covenant is not against the New Covenant, but rather gives us the context by which we understand Christ and his law (Galations 6:2). How does every single law in the OT point to Christ? I don't know, but I know that Hebrews says they point to the New Covenant.
Philip,
I do not think it is unfair to use stereotypes. Similar Groups think alike. That does not mean they are all cookie cutter lookalikes, but it does mean there are similarities. This is a fact of life. Your pastor would agree that The Core has some emergent qualities. That does not mean you have all the weaknesses I expressed earlier. Perhaps I am wrong, but blogs are about expressing ideas. Please do not be offended when I tell you some of the weaknesses in the emergent model. Also, as I said before, I really think a red hot night was very unwise. I am sure you would be reluctant to call an event by this title again because of all the problems it caused. I think the world would love a red hot night. Christ, i would argue, would not. . . unless you are married. Then you can make any night a red hot night. :)
Bob,
Since I was not addressed directly in your last comment, I will let Beloved and Phillip speak for themselves.
But I do feel like I must point out that your only specific indictment of The Core so far is the "red hot party".
This shows me that your reading of Roger Moran's statement was even more careless than his writing of it. The "red hot party" was not our event, it was Mars Hill's in Seattle. We have not endorsed it, nor have we produced anything similar to it.
And although we don't endorse it, we don't judge them either, because all we know about the party is what we have learned from Roger Moran, and it should go without saying that that is not enough.
Please be more careful when pointing fingers.
Bob-
I have to confess, I remembered the part of the verse about cutting yourself, but not about tattoeing. Thanks for referring me to that verse once again so that I could read it for all it's worth. Your approach to the OT seems wise, that it is to be regarded not as explicit, but as a "shadow". Thus learning the principles behind God's commands is the key to being obedient to it today. That, to me, is a most wonderful and honest approach to the Old Testament. Thank you for sharing this view with us.
As with wisdom literature, such as the Proverbs, there is certainly something to be heeded from God's established precedent of the tithe. Honestly, if it wasn't for 2 Corinthians 9:7, I'd be tempted to say, "Since the NT did not abolish the command of tithing, then we ought to keep it." But this verse presents a significant barrier to preaching a mandatory tithe for Christians. It is certainly good and wise to tithe, following in the OT precedent. But 2 Cor. 9:7 clearly delineates that our giving will not be acceptable to God if it is done out of compulsion, even if it be Biblical compulsion. The former segment of the verse, "each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give", is completely useless if there is no decision to be made, only strict adherence to the tithe. If there was a distinction made here between tithes and offerings, then we could concede that. However, there is not. Therefore, the tithe is an obligation, and we are commanded not to give out of obligation.
I stand corrected pastor. . . thanks,
bob
Bob, where you from?
Beloved,
You make a good point, but I would argue, as you guessed :), that Paul is refering to an offering. The difference between an offering and a tithe was already well known through the Old Testament. These particular gifts were an offering for the church of Jerusalem, perhaps like the SBC Lottie Moon offering. The giving here would be above and beyond normal giving, for none of the monies in this offering would be used by the local church at Corinth. Why would Paul need to say that this offering was not compulsory, well. . . because the tithe, the normal mode of giving, is compulsory. Even if I were to agree with your interpretation, this would not mean the 10% principle is obsolete. Under your interpretation I would argue that while the 10% is not mandated, it is still the norm that we as Christians should strive to meet; not because we have to, but because we cheerfully want to. God Bless,
bob
Philip,
Is that a question or a comment? I seem to remember the Lord being asked that question. lol
It's a question, just wondering if you were from Springfield or in this area. It is for invitation purposes only.
It's too bad it took a false accusation by Roger Moran to start up this great conversation about tithing...
Bob, your points are well taken. And I agree 100% that Christians should strive to tithe. We should want to, and we should want to do more than that. In fact, God demands 100%, by way of stewardship. I still have a difficult time believing that tithing is mandatory when it's never once explicit in the NT. If the NT were merely for Jews, I'd have to agree with you completely. But what I see is Jesus calling people to give up everything, and the earliest believers selling their possessions and providing for the needs of every Christian brother and sister within their reach. This should not be surprising considering that Jesus' commands were even stricter than the OT law. "You have heard it said...But I say..." He wants to make it unmistakably clear that it is humanly impossible to obey Him, so that we cannot help but recognize His sovereignty.
Anyone who doubts that the MBC takes Mr. Moran seriously, seems to me to be uninformed about the recent history of Missouri Baptists. After all, Mr. Moran made the MBC what it is today.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home