Why can't we just all get along?
Why, because you can't help people who have a disdain for both history and facts.
Your prolife, capitalistic, Biblically inerrant (even when it uses masculine terms for God), non-pc, weighlifting, leftist butt kicking, Reagan Republican friend Bill

 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 

You are so cute when you get mad Devin.... But be careful you do not paint IWU completely either red or blue... I am here holding down the blue end of the bench (over here Devin... yep, there! you found me sitting behind John Wesley in the "American Holiness movement" section... ;-)


--coach d

 

Devin, now let's not jump to conclusions and assume all Christians are right-wing conservatives. Wait, I'm an oppressor too. You forgot, though, if you're a homosexual and Caucasion, you are considered a victim also. What a great point to make that people try to speak to Word of God by their "experience" and "feeling" instead of heading directly, say, for the Truth (God's Word). Reject scripture, do they? Wow, that's about a two-year-old mentality on that. "When I play hide and go seek wif my fwiends, I just cover my eyes and stand in fwont of vem. If I hide from what is twuf (truth for those who are of not 2-year-old mentality), it will not get me." Well, this intelligence obviously works, right? Oh wait, unless the friend who is the seeker is a blind parapligic, he will find you if you stand out in the open with the "hands-over-eyes" strategy. Good thing for God, though, that truth has never been based on a consensus. Whether a thousand or none believe it, truth is truth. It is embarassing when people reject this truth from their lives considering that would be stating, erroneously, that their experience trumps, not only Christ, but hundreds and thousands of years of accepted, edited, prayed for, and honed dogma and doctorine. Unbelievable that they can state their maximum of 100 some odd years beats the 10 or 20 times that multiple intelligent minds have poured into Sciptures and understanding them. Well, well done on this one too, buddy.

C-Man

 

Oh Devin, dare I say it? Duke seems closer to the Wesleyan ethos than your description of NTS! Okay, perhaps that was an unfair jab. However, your post raises some very good issues that the Wesleyan Church needs to wrestle with. Are all of the seminaries the Wesleyan Church is "approving" actually seminares that we would want our future ministers trained in? Is it time to do a review of seminaries and then come up with a new list not based on denominational affinity but rather ethos, beliefs, and praxis? This would be an interesting discussion to bring before the education and ministry department. Aquire a collection of seminary bulletins, meet with deans, and then decide whether or not a school is fit to train Wesleyan ministersy. Let's stop assuming that all because something bears the label "Nazarene" or "Free Methodist" or even "Wesleyan" that it will automatically line up doctrinally as well as pragmatically with what we believe.

 

Hey Devin,
Danielle and John here! CONGRATS ON THE TWINS! That's amazing! Sarah, I am so excited for you!!:)
How's Kansas treating you? Tell your family hello for us!

 

I'm trying to figure out if you are reading the same Bible and know the same God I do.

I don't want to be unkind, but my impression is that your legalistic forbears have made a successful start in turning you into twice a child of hell as you were when they proselytized you.

I know that "sounds" unkind, but I'm just referencing a comment that Jesus himself made. I mean no malice by it. It just saddens me to see the blind continue to lead the blind and the lost continue in darkness.

Of course, maybe I'm just misreading, but it appears that the folks that got the brunt of tar and feathers from Jesus were those religious right-wingers, the Pharisees. Or did I just misread the gospels?

Keep looking to the real Jesus, my friend, and remember that He is still a friend of sinners. For that is His ongoing purpose...to save people from their sins. There is no Christianity that does not care for the weak, the poor, the lost, the heartbroken and the outcast.

A word of testimony, if I may... I started in the same camp that you seem to be occupying but found it inadequate to transform a critical and prideful spirit in my own heart. After a prolonged process of brokenness, I finally comprehended a freedom I had never known in the "circle the wagons" crowd.

If the Son makes you free, then you will be truly free. Will not the one who gave up His only Son for us also freely give us all things? And does He not love all human beings as much as He does me? Then on what basis do I castigate my brother or sister for either their frailties or their contrasting perspective . Thank God who has set me free from this law of sin and death through Jesus His Son.

May you know this same Christ in as full a measure as those who speak up for the poor and powerless. One of the key ingredients of the gospel message was that good news came especially to them. That's a lot of what liberation theology is about.

Why do evangelical "good news" Christians believe in punitive and retributive justice? Is that the God who has truly revealed Himself in Christ. NO! Christ was about reconciliation, redemption and restoration. This too is justice--setting things right again--but without the retaliatory dimension that so many "conservatives" seem to delight in.

Very well, if you persist in this compassionless and self-righteous spirit, just remember that whatever you sow, you reap. I did and you will too. That's the law of nature and the nature of law. But thanks be to Jesus the Lord for the grace I finally found in Him!

 

To the Person who last commented,
While you raise some interesting points you do, as well, engage in some mud-slinging. It is easy to sit back and take pot shots at those of us who take a moral stand on issues when you yourself lack to the...uh, guts? to even leave your name.

On some of the actual issues you raised: I am not saying we should not aid the poor, give aid to the needy, protect the defenseless, what I am saying is that liberation theology reads the Bible in light of socialism instead of reading socialism in light of the Bible. Until the liberation theology movement moves beyond that fact it will continue to be resisted within the Protestand and Catholic churches. Their lack of exegesis and focus on "experience" as truth is what makes them anathema. By no means is the liberation theology movement alone in their error but it is the movement that I take greatest issue with.

Si vis pacem para bellum. And good luck on finding your guts.

 

My name is Dean and I've little to hide. I've worked 12 hours today and just got back to check and see what kind of response I'd get. Guess I found out. :) If you'd like to contact me personally you can at deanblim@hotmail.com. I hope this doesn't invite a bunch of spam, but I want you to know I'm open.

First, let me offer my sincere apology for not leaving my name. It was not an intentional hiding. I'm still learning to use the blogging thing appropriately. As for mud-slinging, you're probably right and I take no pleasure in it. The fact is, 15 years ago, I was right where you were--trashing those whom I considered liberal theologians and anyone who defended them. I hope you don't take as long as I did to see the spirit of judgmentalism at work in my own life. Somehow, I think that liberation theologians may just be more atuned to the Kingdom of God than the folks who rationalize their execesses as the blessing of God upon them for their superior "morality." Have you read the last pericope in the 25th chapter of Matthew lately?

Second, I have quite high moral standards for myself. I don't abuse my body with unheathly substances or behavior or my mind with unclean content or my soul with unconfessed pride. It is my intention to become more like Jesus each day. I want my life to testify to His Lordship. So I'm not opposed to righteous morality. Instead, I'm really tired of a selective morality that carelessly overlooks the materialistic, hedonistic and nationalistic spirit that is endorsed and reinforced by popular American evangelicalism. If it takes the extreme voice of social liberation theology to prick the dull conscience of a people who care much about a roaring economy but little about how their excess affect both the very survival of other people around the world and the environment of the planet, so be it.

Third, it truly amazes me how much even exegesis can be twisted to fit the assumptions and presuppostions that one has been schooled in. You would think that a balanced and comprehensive understanding of Scripture would yield illumination. But that is just my main point. The Pharisees had no superiors as to knowing the sacred texts and they had scrupulously mined them. But they were actually the most blind to the true nature and character of God. They would have rather maintained their exegetical understanding of the Sabbath day than see people healed of their sicknesses. Many "Christians" in the West are more concerned with Biblical literalism than they are with divine liberation--salvation from not just the guilt of sin but also the debilitating effects of sin.

And now food for thought... How much has theological tradition influenced Biblical translation (i.e. foundational exegesis)? If one begins with tradition shaping the text of any translation, don't we then have theology based more on tradition than on theological truth? And what is theological truth but the very character of God himself revealed, not with "words on papyrus", but through the "Word in Person"?

Dean