tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4894764035439419656.post4694457996603389423..comments2024-01-07T00:04:51.972-08:00Comments on Humble Wonderful: How to be friends with Jesus.Tonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07412650446530771853noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4894764035439419656.post-40861439225060518032013-01-25T04:41:51.552-08:002013-01-25T04:41:51.552-08:00Simon
I note you don't use the word reformed ...Simon <br />I note you don't use the word reformed at all but the word evangelical (as in "your innacuracies about evangelicals"). But I never used the word evangelical so I am not sure the charge of my misuse of the term makes sense. I never say (as you charge) that for most evangelicals, "the explosive direct experience of God as Holy Spirit is deemed to have ended with the apostolic era of the church." I say that is true for most reformed christians. I only ever use the term reformed. When you say evangelical do you mean reformed and vice versa?<br /><br />I think evangelical and reformed are not entirely the same thing. As I say there are many overlaps in the life of Christians and I chose not to use the word evangelical in this piece because I don't think it is as distinct from the Pentecostal christian, or even the Catholic/Orthodox as the Reformed christian is in terms of the point of this piece. Further I don't think you can put emerging christians entirely outside of evangelical Christianity either. I would say that evangelicals is a broader category of which the reformed identity is definitely a part. Far fewer people who identify as evangelicals seem to me to believe in cessationism than reformed (and not every reformed identifying christian does either). So I would agree with your experience in that regard.<br /><br />I think we are bound to find in any conversation about labels that different people use them differently. Thats going to happen especially when I didn't ground this piece in any authoritative definition of the terms but in how I've seen them used as personal identifiers. And my experience is limited. And I didn't help much by discussing Lutherans specifically when in fact many Lutherans would never call themselves "reformed" despite their historical connection to the reformation.<br /><br />What I don't get is whether we actually disagree (or have different experiences) because you and I are not using the same term (evangelical and reformed). If you had used the term reformed then I would see the difference.<br /><br />I certainly was deliberate in my use of the term reformed over evangelical and it reads to me like your own choice was similarly deliberate. Can you tell me why?<br /><br />To your last comment about the emerging churches hermeneutics, as I read more about it I am more and more impressed. William Stringfellow is considered an inspiration to many in that stream and I will be looking to read his stuff for sure. I also recommend what I have been reading by Bill Kellerman ("Seasons of Faith and Conscience"). Or stay tuned here for more blogs on their approach. Certainly my brief appraisal above does no justice to the depth of their biblicism.Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07412650446530771853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4894764035439419656.post-64039864548442063092013-01-25T00:14:04.237-08:002013-01-25T00:14:04.237-08:00(2 of 2)
Having said that, you are right that the...(2 of 2)<br /><br />Having said that, you are right that the Bible is vitally important to evangelicals. If it is true that one comes to begin a relationship with God through the message of the cross, it is important that this message is not distorted so that it "emerges" into something that is not the gospel at all. <br /><br />As Paul says, that gospel about Jesus is "the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes" (Romans 1:16), but it has that power, not because it is the in the Bible, but because it is the good news about Jesus. Jesus is powerful and what Jesus has done is powerful - that's what gives the message about Jesus the power that Paul speaks of here.<br /><br />I could also take issue with your comment that "For other reformed Christians the sacraments are purely symbolic – they point back to the text they are drawn from but do little else." Many evangelicals see the sacraments as much more that mere symbols. You are right that they don't think there is any sort of magical power in the sacrament itself, but it does not simply point back to the text. The sacraments are described as "signs" and "seals" as well as "symbols". They point, not to the text, but to the reality of what they symbolise. This gives them great significance and power. The Lord's Supper, for example, though not transubstantiation, points us to and reminds us of our participation in Jesus' actual death - not just the textual record of the crucifixion.<br /><br />The confusion I found with this post was about what you meant by "experiencing Jesus" or "enabling us to have a relationship" or "way of having a relationship". You start the post by saying that you are exploring how different Christianities talk about "the means" of connecting to God. I think you need to clarify whether you are talking about how you begin a relationship with God and how you grow or "commune" with God once that relationship has started.<br /><br />It's a bit like the difference between wedding vows and a good conversation. Wedding vows are what began my marriage to Cat, and good conversation, loving actions, fun in the bedroom and lots of other things is what keeps our marriage going strong and growing together. In this blog you seem to sort of blur what you mean by "connecting" to God.<br /><br />Despite this little bit of confusion, and you inaccuracies about evangelicals, I thought your blog was quite insightful. <br /><br />I don't think the "emerging" church's attitude to the bible or the gospel is really a solution to much, but I do agree that its emphasis on community is something evangelicals need to learn from.<br />Simon Camillerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14813561936965631699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4894764035439419656.post-84262726858330620412013-01-25T00:13:24.744-08:002013-01-25T00:13:24.744-08:00Hey Tony, you raise some good points and I general...Hey Tony, you raise some good points and I generally agree with your four broad categories.<br />I could comment on them all as someone who was brought up in a Catholic tradition, heard the gospel through a Pentecostal family, now considers myself evangelical and have done some research into the emerging church movement.<br />But I will let others fight their own battles (if there is any battle to fight that is) and I'll just clarify some inaccuracies (as I see them) that you make about my own tribe - evangelicals.<br /><br />You say that for most evangelicals, "the explosive direct experience of God as Holy Spirit is deemed to have ended with the apostolic era of the church. So only by reading about such experiences of God can reformed Christians share in them. To the reformed the loss of the bible would mean there would be no experience of Jesus for this age, no Christianity at all."<br /><br />In my experience of evangelicals and evangelicalism, this is not true.<br /><br />The Holy Spirit is still "alive and well" and at work in the lives of Christians. It is the Holy Spirit that convicts and leads a person to put their trust in Christ. It is the Holy Spirit that enters a believer making them a child of God. And it is the Holy Spirit that sanctifies a Christian to become more like Christ and keeps them on the path til the end. <br /><br />I do not relate to God apart from the Holy Spirit. <br /><br />I do not simply "read about experiences of God" as a way of sharing in them. I experience them myself. The dispute between evangelicals and pentecostals is not about whether one can experience God through the Holy Spirit - but what that experience actually is (ie. miraculous manifestations and health and prosperity etc).<br /><br />The Bible is not what I "connect" to God by. I connect to God by the Holy Spirit, due to the work of Christ on the cross. <br /><br />Evangelicals would generally say, the Bible is what the Holy Spirit PRIMARILY (but not exclusively) uses to communicate to his people and to shape and reform them as they walk with him. But that is only one element of our relationship with God, not the whole deal. <br /><br />I could also speak at length about the importance of prayer as the way we communicate with God, but I will just mention it here briefly as another example of how the Bible is not, for evangelicals, the sum and total of our experience of Jesus. <br /><br />If the Bible did not exist, as it doesn't for many people around the world, it is not true that "there would be no experience of Jesus for this age, no Christianity at all." Evangelical missionaries travel across the world to many cultures, helping people meet God through Christ - without a bible in their native tongue.<br /><br />(1 of 2)Simon Camillerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14813561936965631699noreply@blogger.com