to comment or to post?

sometimes i just dont know which one i should choose, i feel like comments should be kept short, and posts can be longer, so in this circumstance i have elected to post. i would like to preface anything and everything i say in this post by stating that there is a quote by steve brown that basically says something to the effect that no matter how much we disagree with our brothers about certain issues of theology, they are still "us". brian mcclaren is still us. at least i believe that, so as much as i might disagree with him on a lot of things, and sometimes think he says things that are just straight up heretical, and i dont know how he could possibly say he believes in the God of the bible, i still do think he is us. i think he and i are both in the family of christ. i think that is a really important thing to remember, and i do want to treat him like a brother.

that being said i will now respond to tim's post, and although im not certain exactly what a "tim" is, i fear i may in fact be pulling one. now about Gods will, i think this is a very tricky subject, and to be honest its an area i find a lot of mystery in. for example it of course is Gods will that i wouldnt sin, yet i sin. does that mean i am stronger than God, or that God isnt powerful enough to keep me from sinning? of course not, but i do believe that God has in mysterious accord with his sovereignty allowed me some freedom and i am sinning. antimony. God is sovereign, and its his will for me to not sin, yet he also says i have choices and i still do break the sovereigns will. its a tricky thing. i think its the same with salvation, was jesus' blood sufficient for all? YES! could God save all men? YES!!! does God say it is his will that none should perish? YES. does jesus make it clear that people will go to hell? YES. how do those things fit together? to me its an area of incredible mystery. but i think the bible is clear that not all men will be saved in spite of God wanting none to perish.

now in dealing with pre 1900 christians, or for that matter christians in any period of time that had different ideas about what salvation was, what do we do with that? does God change? do his standards change? i dont think so, but i think its important to look to the old testament for example to shed some light on this. how were men saved before the cross? they were saved by looking forward to the coming messiah, they were saved by having faith in one to come. it wasnt their own merit or anything like that, i mean they still had to obey, but they were saved by the cross in the same way that we are saved by the cross, they were just looking forward to it, while we are looking back on it. i think when i look at that, it makes it clear to me what is essential, its the cross. having faith not in oneself, or in the good deeds that one can do, but instead looking to the cross of christ for salvation. i think if there was a 100 years of people that only looked to themselves and what they could do to save themselves, then from what i read in the Bible i do not believe we will be seeing them in heaven. however i do not believe that to be the case. i think its easy for us to look back at general trends and assume things about the beliefs of the masses, but just think about elijah when he was convinced that everyone has bowed to baal, that no one other than him still served God. God informed him that God himself had spared people, that there were 7000 that had not yet bowed to baal (1 kings 19:15-18). i believe in the same fashion God saved people in times that to us look hopeless.

maybe you were more trying to talk about how the church does course correct, and less about people not being able to get into heaven back in the day, and i do agree with you that i think that is what mcclaren is trying to do, i think that he has overcorrected. as i have previously stated in a comment, i love a lot of what the emergent movement, excuse me, the emergent conversation has brought to the table. i think its great. i mean one of the main reasons that i went to the church im at in ft laudy is because of really the influence that the emergent movement had on this church. its a church that wants desperately to be involved in social issues, that wants desperately to see our world healed, and to see the church take part in that healing. i mean my pastor has a bunch of books by mcclaren, but ultimately what he decided and what the church decided is that the theology that has gone along with that movement is unbiblical. what i wanna see the church as a whole do is take some of the emergent coversations passion for healing our world, and righting wrongs, and run with those things, but not take the theology that is attached to it in that particular movement. i dont know why those two things have become so closely affiliated, but for some reason they have and i think a lot of people are wanting to throw the baby out with the bath water, but lets not do that. in fact i was recently eating dinner with an old family friend, and they were asking about my church, when i told them about our churches desire to be involved socially he immediately lumped us in with the emergents. he asked if we followed mcclaren, and was very suspicious of the theology of the church. it took a lot of convincing for me to tell him that wasnt the case. i hate that that happens. i say we take the good and leave the bad, i think we should be able to do that.

and just to be clear i think that is the case of almost all groups of christianity. all denominations or movements or whatever have their strong and weak points, and i think to be well rounded you need to learn what your weak points are and be willing to steal peoples strengths, while leaving their weaknesses behind. i think that is how you become a well rounded christian. well that and reading the word...

im gonna leave it at that for now, but i enjoy this conversation...i think its good.


oh also i saw the grand canyon today and God is really big. really really big. and that canyon is awesome.