Facebook Topic Transplant – Scott S. and Belief in God

At the request of Scott S., this page has been removed. Please contact Scott S. personally for info re: his beliefs in God.

- Rob

Review: Brian McLaren’s “A New Kind of Christianity”, Pt. 1

Brian McLaren (part of the emergent “conversation”) has recently published a new book called “A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions That Are Transforming the Faith“.

McLaren published the book in 2010 with HarperCollins, and it’s been quite a hit. As of mid-April 2010, it’s currently #484 at Amazon.com for book sales, and #4 in the “Books > Religion & Spirituality > Christianity > Christian Living > Faith” category.

Brian describes himself inside the back jacket cover as “an author, speaker, pastor, and networker among innovative Christian leaders, thinkers, and activists.” He also says “here you will find a provocative and enticing introduction to the Christian faith of tomorrow.”

My disagreement starts there. What McLaren presents isn’t an introduction to the ‘Christian faith’ at all. While McLaren may be describing what he thinks faith will look like in the future, he has intentionally mischaracterized much of evangelical Christianity, presenting a straw-man view that modern Christians worship a faulty idea of God that’s derived from the “Greco-Roman” lens. Once McLaren sets up the straw man at the beginning of the book, he proceeds to prop it up and knock it over in each chapter.

Each of the 10 questions gets one chapter of discussion. Yet once McLaren asks the questions, he often dodges direct answers, or using Hegelian dialectic methods, he sets up “thesis/antithesis/synthesis” answers that often employ gross mischaracterizations of evangelicals. He seems to practice rather long-winded exercises in “missing the point.”

This isn’t orthodox Christianity. It’s doubt.

Brian slowly introduces his brand of liberal post-modernistic poison, until by the end of the book the views he expresses are at direct odds with what Christianity believes, all the while calling it “an introduction to the Christian faith of tomorrow.”

I plan over the course of several serialized blog posts to show how Brian’s opinion of the Christianity of the future isn’t a true picture of biblical Christianity, but is instead a picture of wolves running amok in the church.

Just to give you an example of the anger that seems to seethe just below the surface of his book, consider the following:

On page 191 of Chapter 18: “Can We Find a Better Way of Viewing the Future?”, Brian  mischaracterizes conservative Christians, especially those who hold to an eschatology that Jesus is coming back soon with the world being consumed by fire. He seems to reject both ideas as old-fashioned and in the way of the Kingdom work that needs to be done. (Yet both ideas of Jesus’ imminent return and the destruction of the earth are both Biblical: See Revelation 22:20, and 2 Peter 3:12)

Listen to what he says on page 192:

Those of us raised in dispensationalist circles can regale one another with stories about scary “left-behind” sermons, sometimes illustrated through huge and serious wall charts and dramatized in B-rated movies. These sermons often climaxed with warnings about the second coming, when Jesus will return like “a thief in the night” – initiating the “Rapture” when “born-again Christians” will (we were told) be miraculously evacuated to heaven and the rest (includign the children of “saved” parents) will be left behind for a nightmare apocalypse. As a boy of about eight, having come home from school and found the doors locked and nobody home, I once spent nearly an hour sitting on my back porch, deeply dejected and with rising panic, sure that the Rapture had occurred and I was a child left behind. Who knew a third-grader could feel such terror and despair?

To the uninitiated, this all might sound pitiful or laughable, like wild conspiracy theories shared on strange Web sites or middle-of-the-night AM radio. But surprising numbers of mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics have also been thoroughly catechized in this eschatology through televangelist broadcasts and books (and newer B-grade films) in the Left Behind Series, which have broken sales records around the world. If they only focused on speculation about who the antichrist is (I remember hearing it was Khrushchev, then Henry Kissinger, then Saddamm Hussein, and now apparently odds are being placed on Barack Obama!), their eschatological hobby might be harlmess enough – like a crazy uncle obsessed with UFOs. But in recent decades, dispensationalism and it’s eschatological cousins have become significant factors in the foreign policy of the richest, most consumptive, and most well-armed nation in the history of history, and that’s where things get even scarier than a B-grade movie.

Here’s where McLaren really begins to mischaracterize Christians:

If the world is about to end, why care for the environment? Why worry about global climate change or peak oil? Who gives a rip for endangered species or sustainable economics or global poverty if God is planning to incinerate the whole planet soon anyway? If the Bible predicts the rebuilding of the Jewish temple (or requires that rebuilding for it’s prophecies to work in a dispensationalist framework), why care about Muslim claims on the Temple Mount real estate? Why care about justice for non-Jews in Israel at all – after all, isn’t it their own fault for being on land God predicts will be returned in full to the Jews in the last days? If God has predetermined that the world will get worse and worse until it ends in a cosmic megaconflict between the forces of Light (epitomized most often in the United States) and the forces of Darkness (previously centered in communism, but now, that devil having been vanquished, in Islam), why waste energy on peacemaking, diplomacy, or interreligious dialogue? Aren’t those simply endeavors in rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic? And since even Jesus can’t set the world right without taking up the sword and shedding swimming pools of his enemies’ blood (recalling our discussion under the Jesus question), what’s so bad about another war, and maybe even a little torture and genocide now and then? If God sanctions it, why can’t we?

McLaren’s idea of writing a scholarly approach to “Christian Faith of tomorrow” seems to involve mischaracterizing Christians, setting up and knocking down a laughable straw-man argument that we view Scripture through a “Greco-Roman” lens, spewing forth vitriol at fellow Christians – all the while holding forth a smug attitude of false humility and piety.

Reader be warned! This book is not about the coming Christian faith. It’s McLaren’s attack against the faith that’s already been delivered to us.

In the next segment, I will be discussing Question 1, “What is the Overarching Story Lline of the Bible?”

Way of the Master Transcript – Todd Friel and Doug Pagitt

Facebook Topic Transpant: The Holy Scriptures and the Trinity.

I have a facebook account here (opens in new browser window), and began a wonderful conversation with my friend Scott Soutullo and Ben Lindquist.

I wanted to transfer the conversation over to this site so that the conversation will not be limited by the character limitation when it comes to Facebook. I asked both Scott and Ben to come to this site and post comments on the topic here instead.

So, here’s the original conversation and posts:

Rob Willmann began working through Paul Washer’s study on the attributes of God, and enjoyed the first section on God’s Oneness (Deut. 6:4), and the Scriptural support of the trinity.
10:08pm

Ben Lindquist likes this.

Scott Soutullo at 10:12pm April 29
Oneness is about it.

Ben Lindquist at 10:31pm April 29 via Facebook Mobile
Scott, Are you still under the effects of the anesthetic? Just kidding, and hope the surgery went well! Ben

Rob Willmann at 5:24am April 30
Yea, Scripture is abundant with references to the fact that God is indeed trinity – Three in one. The baptist of Jesus by John the Baptist immediately springs to mind, or Peter’s encounter with Sapphira in the book of Acts, or 1 peter 1:1-2.

Scott Soutullo at 8:57am April 30
Which scriptures? Just kidding. Yeah, I know the scriptures to which you choose to refer, but those scriptures — just like the scriptures produced by (typically the males of) all of the other spiritual traditions throughout human history — are abundant with a whole lot of different things, some of which make basic sense, are gems of wisdom  and are, more or less, true (Gal 6 / reap what you sow) & some of which make absolutely no sense and are patently false, like shellfish being an abomination (Lev. 11:11) or Jesus saying that some of the people standing around him wouldn’t die until he returned (Mark 9:1 / Matt 16:28) or encouraging slavery (both having slaves and selling your daughter into slavery) (Exod 21). So, when it comes to something like conceiving God in a very specific way that requires all kinds of contortions & mental acrobatics to believe, i.e. 3 gods in one / trinity, etc., it’s just easier for me to lump that nebulous concept into the second set described above.

Scott Soutullo at 9:00am April 30
And, no, Ben, they never even put me under for the eye surgery. I was awake the whole time, BUT I did get your joke.

And, Rob, you and I have had parts of these types of conversations before and, as you know, speaking as someone who was sincere in my belief and truly sought revelation from Jesus and attended a “spirit filled” church and went to church on Wednesday and Sundays most of my life and truly, truly sought to have a real relationship with the God of the Judeo-Christian bible, and came up dry, I now enjoy gentlemanly debates about the whole thing. My comments are not intended to offend anyone. This, I trust you know.

Rob Willmann at 10:02am April 30
Scott, I do appreciate your comments, and I am in no way offended. I work at a Rescue Mission, and regularly (almost daily) hear opinions similar to yours. So no problem there, bud.

However, for my own sake, can you do me a favor and clarify a statement you made for me? I genuinely want to understand where you’re coming from. I am going to take one of the statements you made and take some phrases out to simplify it, and ask you to clarify what’s left. Cool?

You said: “Yeah, I know the scriptures to which you choose to refer, but those scriptures — just like the scriptures produced by all of the other spiritual traditions throughout human history are abundant with a whole lot of different things, some of which make basic sense, are gems of wisdom and are, more or less, true & some of which make absolutely no sense and are patently false”

Before I address the rest of your post and the 2nd one you made below it, can you clarify that statement?

Ben Lindquist at 11:07am April 30 via Facebook Mobile
Guys, I am so glad that you chose me to moderate the conversation! I will listen to both sides, and then determine who is correct. What?? No?? Just kidding. Scott, I really apprec your honesty, and am looking forward to a good gentlemanly conversation! Kindest regards, Ben

Scott Soutullo at 11:33am April 30
Ben, I hereby ordain you as moderator.

Rob, yes, I can clarify that statement as follows: the Judeo Christian Bible is replete with falsehoods (from a scientific standpoint and otherwise) and moral perversions that are promulgated therein as factual and moral truths (divinely inspired ones at that). An omniscient / omnipotent god would not have allowed “his” “living” “word” to contain any of these, that required “revision” or “re-interpretation” or “new testament-ization” later on. It would be infallibly true, through and through, from the date of writing to the “end of time.” Of course, it also contains some things that are true; but the things in the Bible that are true, aren’t true because they are found in the Bible. They’re just true; and often were said in many other scriptures (Buddha) thousands of years before they were written in the Bible, which has no monopoly on truth.

Scott Soutullo at 3:40pm April 30
P.S. — I have a sneaking suspicion about which way the moderator will guide the discussion, but I’m still game.

Ben Lindquist at 4:03pm April 30
Alright, it’s been a great discussion, and Rob won it handily. Next topic?

Ben Lindquist at 4:07pm April 30
Scott, Just for further clarification. Would you describe yourself as either an athiest or an agnostic? Or is there another characterization more in line with your belief system? I thought that might be helpful in knowing where to go with the conversation. There are numerous interesting topics you raise, and I thought this might be a good starting place. All kidding aside about being a moderator, I really appreciate the ability to discuss this, and look forward to the conversation!

Scott Soutullo at 4:38pm April 30
Dear Moderator: With due respect, “what” I would “describe” myself as, is not a fair question at this juncture as it bears no relevance to the merits (or lack thereof) of any discussion points that I may make. My discussion points or, if I must, “arguments” should, and I allege, do stand alone without the reader knowing how I describe myself along the multi-faceted spectrum of theistic belief. Having said that, are we not all atheists when it comes to Zeus, Horus, Thor, Mithra or Apollo? I should say we certainly are. I just take it one god further. I will say that I am not a complete, 100% atheist because saying, positively, that “there is no God” is the equivalent, intellectually speaking, of saying “there is a God.” I will go on to say that if the creator of all that is, is watching over us and is intervening and participating in our lives, then the chances of it being the God that you just happened to have been taught from an infant is “the one, true God” is almost zero.

Rob Willmann at 9:43pm April 30
Scott, First, I appreciate your clarification of your earlier statement. There are lots of questions and comments I have, and I would like to be able to discuss this without the meager character limit of this format (Facebook). I have a website at http://www.vibist.com/ which is run on a WordPress Engine. I am going to copy/paste this thread into the website so we can continue there without the limit of character space. I’ll transfer all of our current conversation over there.

I would however, like to clarify one of the comments you made:
Scott: “They’re just true; and often were said in many other scriptures (Buddha) thousands of years before they were written in the Bible, which has no monopoly on truth.”

I have a problem with that. Buddha’s death was +/- 20 years of 400 BC. If the biblical texts were written even 1000 yrs later, then that would put the original biblical manuscripts at +/- 20 years of 600 AD at the earliest, based on your statement. We both know that’s not true.

That’s the extent of our Facebook conversation. I transplanted the posts here, and did no editing except to take the “… Read More” statements out of the text that I copied.

Post away!