-
Website
http://emergentnazarenes.blogspot.com -
Original page
http://emergentnazarenes.blogspot.com/2009/04/statue-of-liberty.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
I really like this. I'd like to publish it on my blog with your permission. It's what I've been writing about in some form or another for a long time now, but not as boldly as you have here. I think this is divinel inspired, and if you let it go, could go viral across the Internet. I'm reading content all day long w/ my virtual PR shop and personal blog, and I come across very little in the course of a month or quarter that could ever possibly go viral. I'd say this is a candidate. DO IT.
I'm totally tweeting and FB-ing this.
Once you say "shit", however, you will lose a lot of folks to coronary attacks. Funny how you can say "poop" or "doodoo" and it is okay. (yet all go in the same toilet)
You may wanna leave that to the Mars Hill Church pastor, lol.
Todd Agnew has a song out called "my jesus" that you may be familiar with. He said he had to wait 7 years until there was no bitterness left in his heart over the circumstances which drove him to write those lyrics before he could actually perform it and publish it, because he wanted the song to be about Jesus, rather than about his bitterness.
He also stated later, in a concert that I was at, that though people kept asking him to sing it, to him that registered of something being wrong. he said, essentially, that if you were still singing that song a year later, and meant it, that either A. you needed to get off your ass and start changing your church, or B. you needed to find a new church.
Which is a roundabout way of considering, what does being edgy by saying "shit" in this poem really gain for you? While quite truthfully insinuating that they don't actually have things together, you may be better off saying "who seem to have their lives together" or some such, before diving in.
I'd also recommend Rollin's parable about God leaving heaven to the folks who retreated from earth, so that he could live on earth with the people who rejected heaven to live out Kingdom living with the people here...
That being said, can I use this as a mission statement of sorts for my church plant?
Your more egregious error is placing the following together.
"...your fundamentalists ...gays and your lesbians...transvestites and transsexuals." Uh? You really haven't been around any fundamentalists, have you? It's a test, right? Which item in the above list doesn't fit? Your fundamentalists aren't going to be hanging around people of the homosexual persuasion, or much of anybody else on this list. In fact, they are the vociferous gatekeepers of the first stanza.
Just kidding - sort of - your sentiment is dead on. It looks a lot like Jesus' dinner invitation list. One note: these people didn't have to do anything to enter the kingdom of God, the kingdom of God started breaking out and they walked right in.
As far as the cursing goes, it all depends on the context. You don't want to go too Tony Campollo on the issue if you know that the use of the word will defeat or distract from the purpose instead of adding to it.
1. Based on feedback from here and a few friends in our community, I think I will change "shit" to "crap" - at least in public reading and maybe in print as well. So, I guess, if you use it, you can choose the word that best fits your context.
2. You are free to use this as you please, but I just ask that you keep my name with it. (That's why I put in the copyright line. I feel a little uneasy about being territorial, but someday I would also like to earn at least part of my living by writing.)
3. Maybe a word about my context. This poem is birthed out of my local context (and my experiences in America). I pastor a very diverse church in South Korea. We are the only fully English speaking church in a town of about 500,000, so we get people from across the world and across the religious spectrum.
One of the great frustrations for me is that we seem to lose good people from both extremes. We're too liberal for some conservatives, and we're too conservative for some liberals.
Yesterday, I spent about an hour chatting with a young gay woman who has basically given up on our church because of some of the harassment (probably intended in love?) she received from some of our more aggressive fundamentalist types. It pains my heart that we can't figure out how to help these two strongly disagreeing groups to find a way to seek the grace of God together without fighting or saying the other group is going to hell.
4. In my non-American context, this poem will require a lot of footnotes. I'm not sure what to do with that. It's poetry, so it's descriptive, but many of these labels can't be looked up in a dictionary. The footnotes are a mixed bag. They will detract from the flow but add to understanding. -- argh, the difficulties of language - especially in a multilingual context.
5. Oh, and by the way, this poem is incredibly edgy here in South Korea where Christianity is still tightly tied to the conservative missionaries who got things started here. Our church has a lot more freedom, but still ...
So that we will all be transformed together." As Max L. in his book 'Just Like Jesus' says, "God excepts us just as we are... but He wants us to be just like Jesus." When we are transformed we are no longer what we were, we are new creatures in Christ.
Peace,
Steven
You know your context better than anyone, you know the ins and outs and the fires you will have to quell. That being said, sometimes pushing people is the right thing, and sometimes other methods work better.
At least in my context we finally befriended enough bouncers/strippers/bartenders/fornicators/what-have-yous that the uptight churchy people took their righteous indignation and sanitary theology elsewhere. And God has blessed us with people that would have never come to learn about Jesus otherwise.
"Learning about Jesus" and being radically transformed by faith in Jesus Christ through the Gospel of Jesus Christ are completely different things.
The rich young ruler learned about Jesus Christ, and even directly from Him, but, sadly, he still left Christ's presence and direct teaching facing an eternity in Hell. He came sincerely, but left unchanged. He came authentically, but left faithless. He came seeking, but left lost.
Unfortunately, the rich young ruler rejected Christ's direct teaching and went his own way. Christ didn't change His teaching and its requirements to fit the "context" of the rich young ruler. It was offensive to the rich young ruler. The rich young ruler held on to his then current unredeemed life and idols rather than accepting Christ as Savior through faith. He wanted salvation via his own way...in his own "context". Salvation doesn't happen that way.
Those bouncers/strippers/bartenders/fornicators/homosexuals/what-have-yous that truly put their faith in Jesus Christ will no longer be these former things (isn't this what the Apostle Paul told the church at Corinth?). They will be a new creation through the sanitizing, resurrecting, saving power of Jesus Christ. A new self is put on and the old self is thrown off in a manner that the world will see a life change because of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (sanctification-it changes the ugly and sinful into a more beautiful Christ-like creature bent towards holiness).
And by the way, the giving of the Gospel and ministry to these mentioned unsaved folks are in no way a new thing. The Church has been doing it for as long as it has existed.
What is different, however, is replacing the word "church" with the word "community" and filling that said "community" with the unsaved and with teaching that lacks the Gospel of Jesus Christ and also with teaching that lacks sound biblical doctrine (even blatantly filling it with false teachers and their false teachings), while condoning sin as normative "christian" behavior and while defaming personal purity/holiness as an unworthy pursuit (even though we are commanded to be holy as He is holy).
This effort seems to be a function of changing the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the teachings of Jesus Christ to make them less offensive to the unsaved bouncers/strippers/bartenders/fornicators/homosexuals/what-have-yous, so that they will want to be a part of the said "community" rather than be offended by biblical doctrines/teachings that condemn sin and that requires the leaving of sinful lives.
Sorry to say, that while these bouncers/strippers/bartenders/fornicators/homosexuals/what-have-yous might just join that said "community", they may, in fact, miss out on an eternity with Jesus Christ in His eternal Kingdom.
As the apostle Paul said, to those who are pershing (the unsaved), Christians are the stench of death (but to other Christians, we are the sweet aroma of life). The leaders/teachers of said "community" can throw some Carpet Fresh on the stench, but it ain't gonna go away.
Regards,
It seems this hit a nerve with you, or I am your easy target, either way I disparaged nothing in the gospel in my comment. Merely commented that God blessed us when we let the legalistic folks go. So take it easy brother.
As to taming down the gospel, I hate to burst your bubble but this is simply not the case. There is nothing less offensive; it is the opening of the kingdom to all who need to take part. The last leg is often our own self-righteous attitude that needs to be tempered in humility, as we attempt to walk in the life of Holiness the Spirit can afford.
I don't know what kind of community you are a part of now, but I would suggest you come spend some time in our community before you assume what God is doing in it, and whether or not the fruit of the spirit is present. You are speaking out of ignorance when it comes to our particular context, so I will let that temper your comments as reactionary to a stereotype and short sighted. I wonder where you get the authority and power to determine the salvation of people thousands of miles away because of one guy's comment on the internet? Pure ignorance Paul.
If I were referring to your particular "community", then I would be speaking in ignorance...
...but I was not. You are right...I don't know anything about your "community" (but, through interaction on this site, I do know a little about you).
And, I, certainly, did not determine anyone's salvation. I merely stated the obvious: unsaved folks can't obtain salvation, which is the entire goal of the Church's interaction with the lost world (that they may come to know, through faith, Jesus Christ as Saviour), without hearing the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.
And...my post was addressing, not just you and your post, but the issues raised via Josh's poem. It probably would have been better if I hadn't addressed just you.
Certainly, learning about Jesus, through sound biblical teaching, is not a bad thing...if that is truly what is being done. And...
The Church is a body of believers, not a bunch of unsaved people in a "community". The Church doesn't have to feel bad, or should not feel bad, for teaching, preaching, singing, or worshipping in a manner that is unpleasing to unsaved people (or that convicts unsaved people of their sin - by the way, worshipping in a way that convicts unsaved people of their sin is exactly what scripture tells us to do - 1 Corinthians 14:24-25). Unsaved people won't like the Church and they won't necessarily like what the Church does as it pleases God, but unsaved people should not determine how the Church worships.
We don't open the kingdom to anyone. We are commanded to be faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ - to all of the lost - and then faithful in making disciples, teaching those who are saved, through faith in Christ, to obey all things that Christ taught.
The poem, with its false assumptions, and its crassness hit a nerve...your comments just tweeked the nerve a little bit more.
I am not part of a "community"...I am a member of a local church and the Church universal. This particular local church, thank God, is an excellent preaching/teaching church and has ministries across the board: inner city ministries, homeless shelter/soup kitchen ministries, evangelism ministries, singles ministries, married ministries, childrens ministries, teen ministries, young adult ministries, prayer ministries, helping hands ministries, food pantry ministries, ministries for the elderly, etc., etc., etc.
Praise God, we just had a week of services in which about (40) people put their faith in Jesus Christ and (30) people are being baptized, this Sunday. Some of the people that are being baptized are former drug addicts, former alcoholics, former fornicators and the like. One guy, after accepting Christ, said that, in the three days leading up to coming to our church, he had done more cocaine and drank more booze than he had before in his life. Thankfully, he heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ, accepted Christ, and then made a public confession of his new faith in Christ. Some people are radically, and instantaneously, transformed. The Apostle Paul was. The demon possessed maniac was. The blind man was. The cripple man was. My Dad was.
If anyone has any doubts in regard to what my post was referring to, go to Peter Rollins' blog and look at his "Easter" gathering at the Black Box.
http://peterrollins.net/blog/?p=199
On Easter Sunday ikon offered a gathering in the Black Box entitled ‘Judas’. Here I offer a small virtual tour of the evening.
Warning: the following audio clips contain strong language
The room was sparse, with little more than a long table running from one end to the other. At the centre of the table stood a large wooden chair draped with fine purple cloth and covered with wild ivy, ivy that weaved its way around the chair and spread out onto the table. The table itself was laden with fresh bread, olive oil and balsamic vinegar. Black candles slowly burned down the tables narrow centre. Ambient music filled the room and a large image of two lovers embracing was projected onto one of the walls. The video clip was originally less than a minute long but had been slowed down so that it lasted for the duration of the gathering. The mesmerising visual looked almost like a still image, but as the night progressed the lover’s lips gradually met.
We don't need a "community" bringing about this kind of "great emergence", we need obedient and faithful local churches in which God can use to bring about a great revival.
Regards,
Community is the heart of the trinity and we were all built for community, regardless of your 'saved' status. If you think announcing the Kingdom of God and it's inbreaking isn't the "Good News" gospel that Jesus preached your too stuck on Pauline theology shaped by enlightment philosophy, which is not the 'plain meaning' of scripture.
When people blog specifically about their "communities", it isn't a stereotype...the content is there for all to see. You don't need "context" to discern that an "Easter" gathering that glorifies Judas (the most faithful and committed man in history?) and teaches falsely about him has a problem of biblical proportions.
You will have to define what you mean by "announcing the Kingdom of God and it's inbreaking" before I know whether it is good news, or not. As I have seen this defined by others in like "communities"...it isn't so impressive (just old line liberalism cloaked in postmodern Starbucks speak). As "the KIngdom of God and it's inbreaking" is defined by many "communities", it can be consistent, and in harmony, with the teachings of the world's other religions.
THE "Good News", the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the power to save, however, is easily identified and simple in its definition and delivery....and distinctly different and in opposition to the world's other religions.
Too stuck on Pauline theology? Since, the Holy Spirit used the Apostle Paul to pen a majority of the New Testament...
...too stuck is a good thing.
And...I was thinking about this after I read the poem and your response:
Why is it such a good thing to be so caring for the bouncers/strippers/bartenders/fornicators/homosexuals/what-have-you sinners, but not to be so caring, even callous, towards the prude, fundamentalist, legalist sinners? The first group we just have to have in our "communities", but the second group (by the way, "prudes", "legalists" and "fundamentalists" are ususally just false labels attached to ones who refuse to accept liberalism as a good thing) are unworthy of love and caring (and even need to be expunged from the "community" so that it can flourish)...why?
I think Mark, Chapter 1 verses 14 and 15 best define the gospel of God's Kingdom:
14Later on, after John was arrested, Jesus went into Galilee, where he preached God’s Good News. 15“The time promised by God has come at last!” he announced. “The Kingdom of God is near! Repent of your sins and believe the Good News!”
As for Peter Rollins you are stereotyping. You can no more fault me or any other church for Peter Rollins than you can fault the people of Northern Ireland for his citizenship. Correlation is not causation. Just because there is a term called emergent, emergence, etc. is no means to lump everything you deem necessary into the pot so that you can reject in turn. That is pure and simple stereotyping in the most essential understanding.
In the post Josh refers to fundamentalists in the same context you do, legalists as well. We did not seek that they should leave, and they are welcome back any time. I simply pointed out that as we showed grace to 'the least of these' they withdraw and eventually left. We didn't ask or make them do anything.
You have never been told to go away from here, and I have to admit that is because you are welcome to be here if you wish. Although I am not quite sure why you torture yourself with this blog, it would seem that the pyromaniacs blog would better suit your taste to be honest. That doesn't mean I don't welcome your dialogue, because it keeps my iron sharp.
Being stuck on Pauline theology, and let me clarify that by saying that I mean subsequent theologies derived primarily out of the writings of Paul and not the writings themselves, leaves you to seek Paul first and the actual preaching and teaching of Christ as a secondary source. There are a lot of 'Christians' running around today that could better be described as Paulists, who follow Paulism. I am not saying you are one, I affirm you are my brother in Christ. However there seems to be a strong tint in your tone and demeanor that suggests you hold the words of Paul in a very specific and narrow way. It is a view that has been shaped by thoroughly secular modern and enlightenment thinking and even platonic reason. I don't fault you for that, other than to say that there is a broader theological context within the word's of Christ, the prophets, and the rest of the apostles that shapes and tempers the words of Paul and provides a fuller and richer context for our faith. I don't say that because I am free of a filter either. My philosophical underpinnings are indeed a bit different and that does indeed shape how I read and understand Scripture as well, I jut am able to both understand and admit that reality.
I also want to challenge you in that you feel that people are trying to bring about emergence, as though somehow it is a conspiracy, or a false pretense. What I do, what James is doing and others as well is simply trying to gain an understanding of how to hold onto faith and live out holiness in the postmodern culture that already exists and is increasingly dominant. It's no different than a Hispanic church finding contextually meaningful ways in which to engage their culture.
No one is attacking where you worship and changing your church. Your church is culturally relevant to you and the people that find their home in it, and I believe God can and will continue to use you and the church to help those people that cross your threshold. However, If there is one thing that historical colonialism should of taught us it is that the western christian culture and it's way of doing things is not a universal and globally superior way of being a people, it's simply a way. And let me re-iterate that is a cultural statement, not a religious affirmation of syncretistic faith.
The need for repentance of sins is clearly part of the Good News that Christ was preaching in the passage I mentioned above, no doubts. However the gospel is not to be reduced to repentance for salvation's sake. It is repentance for salvation within the context of becoming a participant and emissary of God's Kingdom. Indeed the possibility of salvation is a foul idea to people opposed to grace. How offensive to the wicked is a good deed? If people are repulsed by the concept of showing other people grace, then they for sure aren't going to react well to the announcement that it is free to all who would repent and receive it. In their world grace isn't free, you have to earn it, the grace of the cross seems foolish.
I have rambled too much..
Peace be with you Paul, this is my last response.
Thank you for your last reply.
If you are talking about a community of believers, which is a church, and the Church, (therefore not a "dirty word" - dirty words, I guess, are just reserved for the worship gatherings of these "communities" - listen to the Ikon "Easter" gathering), then I have no problem with that, but the "community" that is so often referred to is not a body of believers...it is seemingly a collection of the rebellious and the unsaved (just read the answers given to the questions at Ikon's "Easter" gathering) that are intent on railing against the Church and biblical doctrines. Instead of being like-minded in Christ, these "community" folks seem like-minded against the Church and orthodox Christianity.
Yes..the Kingdom of heaven was near (is near). It was imminent and is imminent. Therefore, repent of your sins. Is that the message that these "communities" give to the bouncers/strippers/bartenders/fornicators/homosexuals/what-have-yous? If so, I haven't heard it from these "communities" or the "community" leaders.
From these "communities", I hear alot about compassion in discussions with other world religions and alot about certain charactersitics of the Kingdom of God, but not how to get from being an unsaved hell-bound (many in these "communities" say that hell doesn't even exist) sinner to being a saved member of the Kingdom of God. That part is usually played down, altered, or turned into some unknown secret message. Maybe just referred to, and/or dismissed, as a Pauline theologial constructed message rather than the Gospel message of Jesus Christ. As if what Paul taught was not the teaching of Jesus Christ.
Or maybe "community" gathering time is spent exalting...say Judas, rather than Jesus, in a curse filled screed that doesn't broach the Gospel of Jesus Christ directly, or even indirectly for that matter...just sets the atmosphere with a wall projection of two lovers' slow embrace.
And...it is impossible for one to become an emissary of God's Kingdom minus repentance and salvation. Unsaved folks are not even a member of the Church, which is the instrument that God is using to build His Kingdom, let alone an emissary of the Kingdom.
To the unsaved the cross seems foolish...let alone the grace of the cross.
I suppose that is why it is possible to spend the time at an "Easter" gathering exalting Judas - alleged, by Rollins, to be the most faithful and committed that humanity has ever seen.
Regards,
I have to tell you...It was exciting to see people respond to the Gospel of Jesus Christ in such a manner! One of the pastor's wives was talking to her hair stylist, while her hair was being done, telling her what God was doing and the stylist started to cry. This pastor's wife felt compelled to ask, rather loudly, right there in the hair salon, if everyone knew Christ as Saviour. Another crying woman approached her and said that she did not know Christ and the pastor's wife was able to lead her to faith in Jesus Christ...right there in the salon. When the pastor's wife got home, a phone call came in from the hair salon asking her to come back and console another woman who was sobbing uncontrollably.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ breaks through (exposes) sin and "context". For that, I am thankful. We can all be thankful for that.
One of the associate pastors at our church, now an expert in Greek, is a former drug addict. He, now, has incredible feet that carry the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the lost...I know that he is thankful that the Gospel reaches, through and beyond, "context".
Regards,
But many among the Fundamentalist/legalist crowd seem to expect that people will become fully well and righteous before they can get saved, trapped into an interpretation of the bible where only the Soteric work of Christ has any meaning, rather than the Sozo ministry.
Nowhere in the bible is it ever stated "repent of your sins so that you won't go to hell". What is stated, time and time again, is that the Gospel of the arrival of jesus Christ, the coming of His regeneration of the world, the healing of nations, the embrace of aliens, the healing of the sick, feeding of the hungry, forgiveness of sins, is here...and that with the forgiveness already being present and given, we need to accept it and turn from our former lifestyles which represented a full turning away from all things of God and man.
Having turned away from things which separate us from God and man, we then react through a wide variety of works upon this earth which spring from hearts turned fresh by God's healing and forgiveness, that we might heal and forgive others, that they in turn might also respond to this Gospel and do the same, that the entire earth might be healed and remade in Christ's image...a new, healed earth, rather than a patched together old one...or even a destroyed old one.
But the fundamentalists/legalists don't preach this. They preach death and suffering and hell to any who will not immediately live up to their standards. "Come back to our church when you are perfect like us", they say with their lives and their judgment, and if instead we keep inviting them to come find Christ, to come find healing and forgiveness in spite of still being in process, many of those who themselves cannot forgive, who cannot live in grace, leave for other climates which will support their living in a lack of forgiveness.
You are reacting as you do because people are specifically not saying, over and over, "you must change, or you will go to hell". But they aren't saying it precisely because that message isn't in the bible.
What is in the bible is a statement that those who knew better, who knew Christ and turned away, will be left, will have chosen to be cast out.
If they do not know Christ, if they do not know healing, if they do not know forgiveness, how will they choose?
The popular image of God within the US, a judgemental authority figure looking down on us and waiting for us to fail so that he can inflict us with cancer, who delights in punishing our enemies and watching us torture terrorists in internment camps, is not my God, and those who know only that God see no source of healing for the nations, no visits to the prisoners, no feeding of the hungry that they step over on the way past our austere and unwelcoming church buildings.
I confess a risen Lord who heals and forgives all things, if only we will turn to Him with our hearts and lives. I see a world filled to the brim with practices and beliefs which are callous and unfeeling, which show no love, which serve only to separate us and tell us that unless you become a clone, you cannot know forgiveness.
If getting saved does not make life more wholesome and meaningful here and now, then is it really salvation?
If my church cannot be described as community, and it lives apart from the local community of both believers and unsaved in our surrounding area, then they aren't really a community, they're a social club with parallel beliefs.
If the "bouncers/strippers/bartenders/fornicators/homosexuals/what-have-yous" do not need healing and forgiveness and the testimony of lives changed by a personal relationship with God, who does?
Strawman.
You have stated that as long as we are identifying them by their role which you find unappetizing, that we are somehow glorifying their sin, which has never been stated.
Who are the fundamentalist/legalist televangelists be referred to here?
"You have stated that as long as we are identifying them by their role which you find unappetizing, that we are somehow glorifying their sin, which has never been stated."
I have never said that.
And...who cares what I find "unappetizing". What does God declare sinful?
This poem is responding to a practice of legalistic judgment, which is often unintentional, but nonetheless rampant in the North American (and I can say Korean) Church. If your particular local church doesn't have this kind of judgment (or you don't see it), then please don't take offense.
We are simply trying to follow Jesus' pattern of being friends with sinners and proclaiming that the doors of grace are open to all. Yes, we want all of us to change. Yes, all are welcome: fundamentalists and hookers. Yes, we all need to be transformed.
However, we feel like it is often counterproductive to define that transformation in detail from the outset. First of all, we will often define it in ways that means very little transformation for us personally. Secondly, whatever we define will be short of God's goal (other than saying "becoming more like Jesus"). Thirdly, making lists of specific ethical rules tends to push the rule "violators" away from the very grace they need to make the transformation.
Peter Rollins is on the extreme edge of the emerging church (in my opinion), so be careful about condemning all emergent peoples based on what you see in IKON. Also, be aware that much of what happens in icon is like poetry. They are trying to create a "theo-dramatic" event that will move people to thought, pathos, and action. Often, they aren't trying to state propositional truths (much like Jesus' statement about a camel and the eye of a needle).
As to the use or misuse of the terms "church" and "community," we have to remember that language is weak and transitory. The meaning of words changes over time (e.g. gay = happy, --> gay = homosexual). Many emergent folks feel like the meaning and/or the feelings associated with the word "church" have changed greatly. By using the word "community," they are actually trying to communicate much of the original meaning of "church."
Also, if you read my comments above, I am not trying to exclude anyone. This poem is birthed out of the pains of trying to help very different people find a way to live together in community. The only people who would be excluded are those who insist on the metaphor of church-as-health-club (i.e. for the healthy) rather than church-as-hospital (i.e. for the sick - admitting that we are all sin-sick and in need of God's healing together). I don't want to push these people out, but most of them will walk out because they can't stand all these openly sinful people being around God's community (and maybe because they don't have enough patience to see the slow transformations that are happening).
Are there any judgements relative to sinful practices that can be made that are not considered legalistic?
"However, we feel like it is often counterproductive to define that transformation in detail from the outset."
"We" feel (and what do feelings have to do with it)? Who is "we"? And...doesn't Scripture define the transformation in detail? Don't we see the transformation, in detail, throughout the New Testament?
To the woman at the well, Jesus said, "go and sin no more". He made a judgement about her adulterous life; gave her the living water; and told her that her life needed to be transformed (sin no more). Should our expectations be any less than Christ's? Was He unloving in being judgemental about this woman's sin?
By the way, do you know what was behind the part of the exchange in which the woman said that they worship on that mountain? What mountain was she referring to and why is it significant in regard to our specific conversation?
"Secondly, whatever we define will be short of God's goal (other than saying "becoming more like Jesus")."
Are you saying that God's Word does not clearly define what the Christian life looks like and what personal holiness is?
"Thirdly, making lists of specific ethical rules tends to push the rule "violators" away from the very grace they need to make the transformation."
Then, how do you explain the huge number of unsaved folks that have come to saving faith in Jesus Christ through the Church, which contains such ethical rules? Obviously, it doesn't have the adverse impact that you allege (You might be confusing salvation and church membership).
"Peter Rollins is on the extreme edge of the emerging church (in my opinion), so be careful about condemning all emergent peoples based on what you see in IKON. Also, be aware that much of what happens in icon is like poetry. They are trying to create a "theo-dramatic" event that will move people to thought, pathos, and action."
That Ikon "Easter gathering" was heretically ridiculous. There are no excuses for the exaltation of Judas and the avoidance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ , especially at Easter! The only hope that the Church has to offer the lost world ISs the Gospel of Jesus Christ. There was no hope offered to the unsaved at that Ikon service....only a hideous display of what is wrong with emerging "christianity".
Extreme edge?
The Church has no extreme edges (not of Rollins' kind). That is called false teaching that is to be marked and avoided. The Church's pastors are tasked with feeding and protecting the flock. Rollins does neither and the pastors who promote his books and speak of his emerging "christianity", or his and Tickle's "great emergence" (which is marked by the destruction of the Authority of Scripture, which can be evidenced, as said by Tickle, by the Church's acceptance of homosexuality), are counterfeits, deceived, and/or derelict in their duty.
"They are trying to create a "theo-dramatic" event that will move people to thought, pathos, and action."
Who cares what the medium was! It is the blatant lies and false teaching in the content that is the problem. Judas, the son of perdition, is not equal to Abraham and is not the most faithful and committed Christian that humanity has ever seen.
A "community" that allows such outright heresy and gives no hope through faith in Jesus Christ, can never be equated with the Church. That is why I differentiate between the "communitues" of the emergent and the Church.
The emergent "communities" operate under a different authority than the Church (the Bible): They have different membership qualifications than the Church (salvation and baptism); They have different goals than the Church (edification of the saints that leads towards sanctification and holiness and go into all the world and make disciples teaching them to obey all things that Christ commanded); and etc., etc., etc.
And...Ikon is just emerging "christianity" and its theology and doctrines put into practice...
You can't disown it. It is the outcome of the constant questioning and the emergent "conversation", which never comes to the truth (and the Truth).
"The meaning of words changes over time (e.g. gay = happy, --> gay = homosexual). Many emergent folks feel like the meaning and/or the feelings associated with the word "church" have changed greatly."
Sorry...words mean something. They have specific definitions. To mix words and definitions, which results in "muddy waters" only reminds me of the serpent in the garden asking Eve, "Did God not say?". Let your "yes" be your "yes" and your "no" be your "no" is so much less confusing and so refreshing to the saved and unsaved alike.
Regards,
Welcome back, we haven’t seen you in a while. I don’t have time to dive into all the minutiae of everything that was said in these comments. I wish I did, but I only have a short break at work to give time to this right now.
I just want to concede a very good point you make. I think your main point, though I may disagree with some of your tangent points, is that the gospel is transformational. I agree 100%. It is transformational for both individuals and the communities they participate in.
In fact I think this is something we can find solidarity in; I am not sure why either of us would disagree with the poem. After all the poem ends with, “For all who need a new start,
For all who want a new world, We lift high the cross of Christ, So that we will all be transformed together.”
Skimming as attentively as I can at the moment at the comments remind of the kind of arguments I have had with my wife in the past where half way through the argument neither of us are sure what we are arguing about. One thing the argument isn’t about is what we are saying it is about.
Sometimes when people get so used to arguing they just pick their sides and the roles they have grown accustom to playing in the argument and go at it. By habitually arguing with those we are getting to know we can stop listening, and stop getting to know them as growing individuals. When we stop listening we freeze people where we last perceived them to be in our previous argument and fail to let or acknowledge any kind of transformation take place. I wonder if this is happening here.
Paul, I can’t imagine that you have any real objection to the poem, it ends after all in the very important point you make about transformation.
So, let’s work on a bit of reconciliation here and admit that as followers of Jesus we can all agree with the call and spirit of this poem. It is a good place to start. We can talk about “transformation”, but I would rather us try to live it out as we do. The poem is about redemption, I wish our comments could reflect more the same kind of redemption and transformation it talks about.
Paul you are welcome here, so is anyone that fits any of the descriptions in the poem. Knowing you are a follower of Jesus, I have to believe that you would welcome them too, as you welcome us. So, let us be transformed together.
Peace,
James
Thank you for your welcome and for your agreement and the tranforming power of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
"For all who need a new start,
For all who want a new world, We lift high the cross of Christ, So that we will all be transformed together."
This sounds somewhat okay, but given the nature of postmodernism, I think that it is important to specifically define what is meant by: "new start" (is it salvation through faith in Jesus Christ as defined by the Gospel of Jesus Christ as defined in the New Testament?); "new world" (what is the "new world"? How is it created? Is it akin to saving faith in Jesus Christ that redeems us back to God and provides us with eternal life and eternal reign with Christ?); being "transformed together" (who gets tranformed? how? what is the process? how does it start and end? Is it the justification, sanctification and glorification of those who have faith in Jesus Christ?)
If we really want to be the "ancient future" church, for the sake of clarity, for the sake of specificity, for the sake of reaching a postmodern culture with the truth/Truth, why don't we throw off the confusion resulting from obscure verbiage and use the terms established by Jesus, the apostles, and the Church in the first century?
If any reconciliation is goig to take place, on this issue, some things need defining.
And...my problem with the poem was, number one, the use of foul language (there is no context for the use of such in the ministry of the Church) and, number two, the false assumption that the Church has not given an open invitation to faith in Jesus Christ, via the Gospel of Jesus Christ, to all sinners....It has.
And...hopefully, this is not an argument for arguments sake, but as Dave said, "iron sharpens iron" and given the "extreme edges", as evidenced by Peter Rollins and Ikon (cited above), of the emergent "conversation", there needs to be some effort given towards the defense of the faith.
Regards,
I suggest we table the issue of “foul language” for now; just so we can move on to the meatier issues. I do think it is important to validate another statement you make, that is that the Church has given an open invitation to faith in Christ to all sinners. Now, by the Church, I mean the Body of Christ through out history. I don’t think we have always done this perfectly, but we have done it. So you are right in what you say. Still, I also think there are things we sometimes call “church” that has little to do with the continual Body of Christ called the Church through history. Some call buildings, institutions, and political movements “church”, and I think it say that these things have always fallen short of what it means to be the Church.
As for casting off terms except for Jesus, the apostles and the first 100 years of Christianity, I am not sure we can just pretend that the Church hasn’t had 2000 years of evolving conversation as we continue to work out our salvation with fear in trembling what God has worked into us as his disciples. I am not sure we want to throw out terminology like “the trinity”, or the many benefits that came from various Christian frameworks and their budding terminology and vocabulary that we get from the church fathers, monastic movements, the reformation, and various other Christian traditions through out history.
You are right we are going to have to define terms, and clarify what we mean, especially in a world where the context of language is always changing. I think many participating in the “emergent conversation” are trying to do that, as well as plenty of people who would never consider their contribution to the conversation “emergent”. I think you ask some great questions, and I am open to explore those questions and find some answers as we follow Jesus as the Way the Truth and the Life together.
As for your issue with Peter Rollins and “Ikon”, I don’t want to position ourselves as their apologists. I do not know much about IKON, and when it comes to Rollins there is a lot he has said I resonate with, but other things I disagree with. I think there are some weighty topics you bring up, but your criticism seems all over the map and seems disconnected from the post. It’s like what we post is irrelevant to you, you just want to talk about Peter Rollins and Phyllis Tickle even when there is no context for it. This makes any really dialogue difficult and hinders our ability to have fruitful conversation.
I suggest that you wait till someone posts on thing like Rollins and Tickle if you really want to engage in a conversation about them. I bet these authors will come up at some point. Or you can start a post on your own blog and invite us over to comment and dialogue. It’s just that your comments about them are kind of drive by, they just spurt out some kind of unqualified tidbit and moves on in kind of a rage. For instance, you make a comment about Tickles “destruction of the authority of Scripture, which can be evidenced, as said by her speaking of the Church's acceptance of homosexuality”. I read Tickle’s book and I am not sure your comment is reflective to the spirit and intentions of her position.
It is true that she asks, “where now is our authority” and speaks of moving away from sola scripture, but she does this in the context of an understanding that sola scripture was itself a shift away from the authority of the institutional church. Her context and lens seems to be anthropological based on observations of history rather than one advocating for a particular prescription. You can disagree with her observation of history and her perception of where we are now, but her one comment in the whole book about homosexuality was not an endorsement. I have no idea if she endorses homosexuality or not, but her book simply addresses the fact that if we are finding our authority in other places besides sola scripture and that may leaves a lot for us to work out in regards to how we navigate lots of issue and homosexuality is just one of them, whether we believe it is sinful or not. I actually think you may agree with that conclusion in regards to a shifting view of authority away from sola scripture, but you wrongly conclude that such a shift means that we have to start condoning all type of things that are sinful. Navigating these issues in a new way does not mean that we have to endorse them.
But again, this has nothing to do with the poem Josh posted. Paul, sometimes I kind of feel you come here looking for a fight. I will admit that it get a bit tiresome and frustrating that the conversations we initiate (like about Josh’s poem) get hijack by those with an axe to grind about entirely different issues. I don’t want to say that the issues you bring up aren’t important; they just derail any conversation that may actually be based on the post. I suggest you can contribute to the conversation by answering some of your own questions and share with us what you think about “how we are transformed? what is the process? And how does it start and end?”
If you want to have a discussion, one that can sharpen us all, then I am all for it. Let us try to be orderly about it and not try to grind every axe we might have against anyone who has ever identified with the “emergent conversation” all at once. I think each post has enough in it to tackle that we don’t have to try and solve everything else in the context of every thread of comments.
Peace,
James
Also, I really appreciate your helping us to see the common ground that we already have.
Paul, a few comments.
1. Again, it's not fair to lump together all people who somehow connect with the label "emergent." This is like nonChristians saying that all Christians are like the people who bomb abortion clinics or hold up signs saying "God hates fags." There is a wide diversity of opinion on almost every issue, and no "group" thinks the same on all issues.
2. You wrote: "Are you saying that God's Word does not clearly define what the Christian life looks like and what personal holiness is?" My answer: Yes.
God's Word does not clearly define how faithful Christians should live in the 21st century. We live in a different world, and any exegete of Scripture will tell you that we have to make some serious adjustments as we try to live the Truth of God's Word in God's 21st century world. Christians everywhere are trying to figure out how to be faithful in this changing world. (Moving from culture to culture is difficult. Just consider these examples: no women speaking in church, no men with long hair, no tattoos, women must wear head coverings in church, no garments made of two different materials, slaves should not run away, etc. Obviously, we have to make cultural translations. As thinking Christians, we get together to think about how we make all of the translations - not just the obvious ones.)
3. I understand your desire for definition, but this was a poem not a dictionary or a theological treatise. Please have some respect for the genre. There is a time for definition and a time for art.
4. I affirm James' description of our common ground. I think we are moving in the same direction and on the same team. We want people all over the world from all types of backgrounds to be so transformed by the love of God in Jesus Christ that we all together join the mission of God of sharing grace and healing with others. We agree on that. (So could you please tone down the anger a bit!)
Thank you for posting. You are welcome here. I just echo James' request that you post a bit more to the topic and with a bit more kindness.
"1. Again, it's not fair to lump together all people who somehow connect with the label "emergent." This is like nonChristians saying that all Christians are like the people who bomb abortion clinics or hold up signs saying "God hates fags." There is a wide diversity of opinion on almost every issue, and no "group" thinks the same on all issues."
When emergents include folks like Rollins, in their "conversation", and recommend his literature, teachings and opinions, then it is absolutely reasonable to "lump them togther". The Bible doesn't not afford the Church with the kind of diversity that you are requesting.
"2. You wrote: "Are you saying that God's Word does not clearly define what the Christian life looks like and what personal holiness is?" My answer: Yes. "
I disagree. It is clear.
"God's Word does not clearly define how faithful Christians should live in the 21st century. We live in a different world, and any exegete of Scripture will tell you that we have to make some serious adjustments as we try to live the Truth of God's Word in God's 21st century world."
Again, I disagree. Any exegete of Scripture will tell you that we have to make some serious adjustments? Okay...give me the specific passages.
"3. I understand your desire for definition, but this was a poem not a dictionary or a theological treatise. Please have some respect for the genre. There is a time for definition and a time for art."
Art for art's sake? Are you more worried about the genre than you are about rightly dividing the word of truth and being biblically concise and specific to an unsaved postmodern generation? And..."art" that includes cursing stinks.
"4. I affirm James' description of our common ground. I think we are moving in the same direction and on the same team. We want people all over the world from all types of backgrounds to be so transformed by the love of God in Jesus Christ that we all together join the mission of God of sharing grace and healing with others. We agree on that. (So could you please tone down the anger a bit!)"
It is faith in Jesus Christ through the hearing of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and then the subsequent sanctifying power of of the Holy Spirit that transforms. It makes lives new. Church's are full of former bouncers/strippers/bartenders/fornicators/homosexuals/what-have-yous, not current bouncers/strippers/bartenders/fornicators/homosexuals/what-have-you.
Anger? As Dr. Bruce banner said, "You won't like me when I'm angry."
Regards,
Thank you for the reply.
"As for casting off terms except for Jesus, the apostles and the first 100 years of Christianity, I am not sure we can just pretend that the Church hasn’t had 2000 years of evolving conversation as we continue to work out our salvation with fear in trembling what God has worked into us as his disciples."
I agree with you and that was not my intent. My intent in mentioning the issue was that using cleary defined and already biblically used and established terms would assist in giving the Gospel to a postmodern generation. Using vague terms that are utilized by all sorts of folks and faiths could cause undue confusion and negatively impact the ability to reach postmoderns with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
"As for your issue with Peter Rollins and “Ikon”, I don’t want to position ourselves as their apologists."
Good. That wouldn't be a good position to be in, but when one reads, recommends, implements his literature, opinions and offerings...they are by default an apologist for him. My issues with Rollins should be any Bible-believeing Christians, especially pastors, issues. He should have no voice in the Church, and given the content of his "ministry", he should have no voice in your "conversation."
"... when it comes to Rollins there is a lot he has said I resonate with, but other things I disagree with."
False teaching is always cloaked with an element of truth. Just because he says something that might be reasonable, or even true, the blatantly false content disqualifies him.
"...but your criticism seems all over the map and seems disconnected from the post. It’s like what we post is irrelevant to you, you just want to talk about Peter Rollins and Phyllis Tickle even when there is no context for it."
I thought that there was a context for the introduction of Rollins and that the input flowed with the discusion as it was evolving.
When this is our unfettered by biblical contraints approach:
"At least in my context we finally befriended enough bouncers/strippers/bartenders/fornicators/what-have-yous that the uptight churchy people took their righteous indignation and sanitary theology elsewhere.
Rollins, Ikon, and their type of "Easter" gathering are the eventual outcome.
I think that this is a very legitimate and consistent issue related to the discussion. The premise behind the poem and many of the comments is that the Church, with its "sanitary theology and uptight people, has failed
in reaching the bouncers/strippers/bartenders/fornicators/homosexuals/what-have-yous with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I believe that the removal of the so-called "sanitary theology and uptight people" will result in communities and gatherings like Ikon that are devoid of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. What good is that to the bouncers/strippers/bartenders/fornicators/homosexuals/what-have-yous?
"Paul, sometimes I kind of feel you come here looking for a fight."
Sometimes...there is a "fight" to be had. Isn't that part of the conversation, too? Cursing, in a Christian ministry context, and false assumptions lead to a "fight". Don't they? The poem was meant to be provacative, right?
"If you want to have a discussion, one that can sharpen us all, then I am all for it. Let us try to be orderly about it and not try to grind every axe we might have against anyone who has ever identified with the “emergent conversation” all at once. I think each post has enough in it to tackle that we don’t have to try and solve everything else in the context of every thread of comments."
Fair enough.
Regards,
You said, “He (Rollins) should have no voice in your "conversation”….False teaching is always cloaked with an element of truth. Just because he says something that might be reasonable, or even true, the blatantly false content disqualifies him.”
How do you determine what is “blatantly false” compared to something obscurely false This sounds like a pretty subjective determination depending on what seems obvious to the beholder. Not only that, why is the obscure falsehood you don’t see less dangerous than the “blatant” one? I would think it would be the other way around.
Perhaps you just mean that you leave room for little errors but not big ones. Is there some kind of scale where I can determine if something is just a small error compared to a big error? At what point does error tip the scale from sound teaching with a little bit of error mixed in and move to false teaching with a lot of error? Or must we have no error and anything false in our teaching in order not to be disqualified from the conversation?
Who (besides Jesus) can live up to this expectation that anyone who has any element other that absolute pure truth in their understanding and teaching must to be disqualified? Neither Calvin nor Wesley could be held to that standard, and we seemed to be influenced a lot by these two guys between our critics and contributors. Not only that, many in each camp consider the other one to be pretty blatant in their error. But then again, some in these opposing camps don’t view where they believe the other is in error as blatant errors. Again, this seems kind of subjective.
"Perhaps you just mean that you leave room for little errors but not big ones."
Ummmm...No.
"Who (besides Jesus) can live up to this expectation that anyone who has any element other that absolute pure truth in their understanding and teaching must to be disqualified?"
“Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” Acts 17:11 NIV
As Paul told Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:2-4, “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”
When a person exalts Judas at an "Easter" gathering, and teaches falsely about him (most faithful and committed Christian humanity has ever seen...could rival Abraham in his faith and commitment - that is a myth and a fable), among other things, while avoiding the Gospel of Jesus Christ...It is reasonable to label it blatant.
And...I don't think that Calvin and Wesley having anything to do with this issue - talk about going off subject - (what would Wesley think about exalting Judas at Easter? What would Wesley think about JUdas? Hint: Wesley's Notes from John 17:12 - That the Scripture might be fulfilled - That is, whereby the Scripture was fulfilled. The son of perdition signifies one that deservedly perishes; as a son of death, 2 Sam. xii, 5; children of hell, Matt. xxiii, 15, and children of wrath, Eph. ii, 3, signify persons justly obnoxious to death, hell, wrath. Psalm cix, 8.). And...I would submit that most, if not all, of your contributors are more influenced by the 1970's constructed Weslyan Quadrilateral than they are Wesley.
This says it better than I could:
Thinking Biblically
June 18th, 2008
(By John MacArthur)
In its simplest definition, discernment is nothing more than the ability to decide between truth and error, right and wrong. Discernment is the process of making careful distinctions in our thinking about truth. In other words, the ability to think with discernment is synonymous with an ability to think biblically.
First Thessalonians 5:21-22 teaches that it is the responsibility of every Christian to be discerning: “But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil.” The apostle John issues a similar warning when he says, “Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1).
According to the New Testament, discernment is not optional for the believer — it is required. The key to living an uncompromising life lies in one’s ability to exercise discernment in every area of his or her life. For example, failure to distinguish between truth and error leaves the Christian subject to all manner of false teaching. False teaching then leads to an unbiblical mindset, which results in unfruitful and disobedient living — a certain recipe for compromise.
Unfortunately, discernment is an area where most Christians stumble. They exhibit little ability to measure the things they are taught against the infallible standard of God’s Word, and they unwittingly engage in all kinds of unbiblical decision-making and behavior. In short, they are not armed to take a decidedly biblical stand against the onslaught of unbiblical thinking and attitudes that face them throughout their day.
Discernment intersects the Christian life at every point. And God’s Word provides us with the needed discernment about every issue of life. According to Peter, God “has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence” (2 Peter 1:3). You see, it is through the “true knowledge of Him,” that we have been given everything we need to live a Christian life in this fallen world. And how else do we have true knowledge of God but through the pages of His Word, the Bible? In fact, Peter goes on to say that such knowledge comes through God’s granting “to us His precious and magnificent promises” (2 Peter 1:4).
Discernment — the ability to think biblically about all areas of life — is indispensable to an uncompromising life. It is incumbent upon the Christian to seize upon the discernment that God has provided for in His precious truth! Without it, Christians are at risk of being “tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine” (Ephesians 4:14).
http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/06/18/thinking-bib...
Regards,
Are you still attending that Universalist Unitarian Church?
John MacArthur ain't a hyper Calvinist...not in any manner.
"Next time, roll out Paul Washer, he has that pitiful cry in his voice."
Yeah...Isn't it just ridiculous when someone gets passionate and emotional about what God has done for them (salvation through faith in Jesus Christ), the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and and for lost souls?! Just ridiculous!
"That long bony finger of fundamentalist judgment and condemnation."
How in the world does MacArthur's article on the topic of biblical discernment = fundamentalist judgment and condemnation?
Regards,
"The Nazarene position is plenary inspiration, not inerrancy, infallibility and literal."
Yeah...I am aware of this. I, and many others, just don't agree with H. Orton Wiley on this one when he wrote the COTN's position, leaving "elbow room for science and the social sciences."
But, to Unitarian Universalist's...
Jesus is a liar or wrong because he said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life and no man comes to the Father, but through Me." The UUC says that this isn't true.
If you don't even hold to, or believe, THE essential doctrine of Christianity...
Why bother getting into a discussion on inerrancy and infallibilty?
I have an appointment, so I can't write much. Maybe this would be a fair compromise. Maybe you could suggest one limited topic you would like to discuss. Then, one of the contributors here will start a post dedicated to discussing that topic.
-David
I love when in the argument for being “biblical” people throw out proof texts like 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 and 1 John 4:1, as if they say “compare everything to the bible and whatever does not match, throw it out”. These text DO NOT say that. Scripture isn’t even mentioned as part of “testing the spirit” in these verses. 1 Thessalonians seems to come close at first glance as verse 20 says, “do not treat prophecies with contempt”, which is the context of the verse you quote where Paul gives his advice to handling various “prophesies” by saying “test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.” But, “prophesies” here isn’t scripture, or Paul would not encourage them to sift through it themselves to “hold on to what is good” and throw out the bad. These prophesies were things those in their own community were saying. I don’t think we can reduce what Paul is saying in these verses as just an instruction to compare what is said to the Bible. I am sure Paul would not object to this as being part of “testing everything”, but it is not Paul’s prescription here as you imply by using it as a proof text.
Your next verse in 1 John 4 does tell us to test every thing, but like a true “proof texter” you apply this to your own systematic context of YOUR (an others of the same mindset) view of the role of the bible rather than the context given in the actual text. If you read past verse one, John gives us the answer to how we are to test the spirit which is quite different from what you say. (2) “This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.” John continues to “flesh out” what this looks like in the whole chapter, as he points to looking for evidence where the Spirit of Christ is active in the world, as opposed to the spirit of the world itself, whom John tells us that he who is in us is greater than that of the world. John even describes what this looks like by saying things like, “Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God, and whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” (7,8) This testing that John describes is about looking for and clinging to where we find the incarnation presence of Jesus (Chapter 2, 6-12).
In 2 Peter 1:3-4 you make a gigantic assumption that the “divine power” that these “precious promises” come through is limited to just scripture. Scripture was just a part of this as God’s divine power comes through the presence Jesus Christ himself in the world, which includes His body and their testimony. But you make it sound as if all this divine power was just to send us a book. Then you warn us about the importance of “thinking biblically about all areas of life” so that according to Ephesians 4:14 we are not “tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine”. But the context of Ephesians 4 that keeps us from being “tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine” is to get connected to the Body of Christ as Paul makes abundantly clear in the first 16 verses, from which you quote verse 14 out of context. “Thinking biblically” is NOT what Paul is talking about that protects us, but rather he is talking about the unity of the Body of Christ and community.
So, I have tested your “proof texting” and your combative spirit and have found both not to be true to Jesus. You have been deceptive in your use of scripture by changing the context of these narratives to fit your view of what you think “Biblical Christianity” is. Considering the importance you SAY you give scripture, I find this to be extremely hypocritical. What you present here is not consistent with the Way of Jesus, neither in the substance of love nor even in the substance your words.
I ask you that you reconsider your ways as you interact with us here or I am not sure how it can be fruitful and beneficial for any of us to continue in this interaction.
Peace,
James
I really don't understand what was so offensive.
First of all, you do realize that it was John MacArthur's article and not my work, correct? I don't think I need to defend John MacArthur. I believe that he has proven himself in the area of rightly dividing the word of truth, but...
You did call it deceptive use of the Scripture. So...whether it was my work, or MacArthur's (which it is MacArthur's)...it doesn't matter, that needs to be addressed because I believe that a careful look will reveal that it is not "deceptive use of the Scripture" as charged. You could email MacArthur and probably get a response from someone, though.
"But, “prophesies” here isn’t scripture, or Paul would not encourage them to sift through it themselves to “hold on to what is good” and throw out the bad. These prophesies were things those in their own community were saying."
BINGO! That is exactly what we are talking about. As John Wesley cites in his Explanatory Notes, "prophesying" is preaching:
Verse 20
[20] Despise not prophesyings.
Despise not prophesyings — That is, preaching; for the apostle is not here speaking of extraordinary gifts. It seems, one means of grace is put for all; and whoever despises any of these, under whatever pretence, will surely (though perhaps gradually and almost insensibly) quench the Spirit.
Verse 21
[21] Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Meantime, prove all things - Which any preacher recommends. (He speaks of practice, not of doctrines.) Try every advice by the touchstone of scripture, and hold fast that which is good - Zealously, resolutely, diligently practise it, in spite of all opposition.
John Gill stated this of the passage in his Exposition of the Bible:
1 Thessalonians 5:21
Prove all things…
That are said by the prophets, all the doctrines which they deliver; hear them, though they have not the gift of tongues, and all desirable advantages; do not reject them on that account, and refuse to hear them, for so, many useful men may be laid aside, and the Spirit of God in them be quenched; try their gifts, and attend to their doctrines, yet do not implicitly believe everything they say, but examine them according to the word of God the test and standard of truth; search the Scriptures, whether the things they say are true or not. Not openly erroneous persons, and known heretics, are to be heard and attended on, but the ministers of the word, or such who are said to have a gift of prophesying; these should make use of it, and the church should try and judge their gift, and accordingly encourage or discourage; and also their doctrines, and if false reject them, and if true receive them.
Hold fast that which is good;
honest, pleasant, profitable, and agreeable to sound doctrine, to the analogy of faith, and the Scriptures of truth, and is useful and edifying, instructive both as to principle and practice; such should be held fast, that no man take it away; and be retained, though a majority may be against it, for the multitude is not always on the side of truth; and though it may be rejected by men of learning and wealth, as Christ and his doctrines were rejected by the Scribes and Pharisees, and rulers of the people; and though it may be reproached as a novel, upstart notion, or a licentious one, since these were charges against the doctrine of Christ, and his apostles; and though it may be attended with affliction and persecution, yet none of these things should move from it, or cause to let it go.
So...if you apply 1 Thesallonians 5:21 to Rollins Ikon "Easter" gathering, using biblical discernment, we should all reach the same conclusion. We take the "prophesying" (the preaching) of Rollins in his "community", in your "community" and examine it. Is exalting Judas and leaving out the Gospel of Jesus Christ in an "Easter" gathering worthy of holding on to? Is that kind of "preaching" biblical?
As For 1 John 4:1, Gill says this:
Beloved, believe not every spirit…
The apostle having mentioned the word "spirit" in the latter part of the preceding chapter, takes an occasion from thence to return to what he had been suggesting in the "second" chapter, concerning the many antichrists that then were, and whom he points out, and here cautions against. By "every spirit" he means, either every doctrine that is pretended to come from the Spirit of God, or every teacher, who professes to be qualified and sent by him, and to have his light, knowledge, and doctrine from him. Every true minister of the Gospel has the Spirit, and the gifts of the Spirit, more or less, to qualify him for his work; he is separated, and called to it by him, and receives his spiritual light find knowledge from him; it is he that teaches him sound doctrine, and leads him into all truth, as it is in Jesus, and brings every necessary truth to his remembrance; and who succeeds his ministrations to the good of souls: but there are some who call themselves the ministers of the Gospel, who, though they may have some natural abilities, and a share of human learning, and a notional knowledge of things, yet have never received either grace or gifts from the Spirit; nor have they been ever called by him; nor are their ministrations according to that divine word which is inspired by him, nor attended with his demonstration and power; wherefore, though some professing to have the Spirit of Christ are to be believed, yet not everyone; and though the Spirit is not to be quenched in any, nor prophesying to be despised, yet care should be taken what is heard and received: some persons are so obstinate and incredulous as not to believe anything that is declared, be the evidence what it will; as the Jews would not believe Christ and his apostles, though what they said agreed with Moses and the prophets, and was confirmed by miracles; and others are too credulous; at once receive every teacher, and embrace every upstart doctrine: this they should not do,
but try the spirits whether they are of God;
not by human reason, especially as carnal and unsanctified; for though the doctrines of the Gospel are not contrary to true reason, they are above it, and not to be judged of by it, and are disapproved of and rejected by carnal reason; but by the word of God, which is the standard of all doctrine; and whatever agrees with that is to be received, and what does not should be rejected. And so to do is very commendable, as appears from the instance of the Beraeans, who on this account are said to be more noble than those of Thessalonica, (Acts 17:11) ; and from the commendation of the church at Ephesus, (Revelation 2:2) . And this is what every believer, every private Christian should do; to them it belongs to read and search the Scriptures, and prove all things, and judge for themselves of the truth of doctrine; and to such a probation or trial of the spirits, spiritual light, knowledge, judgment, sense, experience, and divine guidance are necessary, which should be asked of God, and an increase thereof; and all such diligent searchers, and humble inquirers, are capable of making judgment of persons and doctrines, whether they are from the Spirit of God or not, for the Spirit of God never speaks contrary to his word: and the reason why such a trial should be made is,
because many false prophets are gone out into the world:
such who pretended either to a revelation of future things, and to foretell things to come; or rather to a gift of prophesying, or preaching in Christ's name, to be "prophets" and spiritual men, and ministers of the word, but were "false" ones; who either predicted what did not come to pass, or rather preached false doctrine, by corrupting the word, and handling it deceitfully, and so imposed upon and ruined the souls of others, as well as deceived their own: and there were not only one, or two, or a few of these, but "many", as our Lord had foretold, (Matthew 24:11,24) ; and which makes the reason the stronger for not believing every spirit, but trying them; and the rather, since they were not sent of God, hot called out by his churches, but were "gone out" of themselves; of their own heads, and without any mission from God or man: and "into the world" too; they were in every part of it, and especially where there were any churches of Christ; into which they first crept in privily, and at unawares, but afterwards became public preachers of the word, and then separating from them, set up openly in the world for themselves.
"So, I have tested your “proof texting” and your combative spirit and have found both not to be true to Jesus"
First, given the above, I don't think that your test actually produced the results that you claim and secondly, I find it interesting, given that you object to Scripture being employed as the test, that you employed Scripture to test the alleged incorrect "proof texting". I don't know what you used to "test" my alleged combative spirit.
In the end, should we use Scripture as the test for the Rollin's teaching on Judas? And...what does Scripture say about Rollins avoidance of the mention of the Gospel of Jesus Christ at his "Easter" gathering? Does 1 John 4, possibly, cover that issue? If Scripture isn't the test, then what should be used?
Given the above, why should I reconsider my ways?
Regards,
I do not object to scripture being used as "a" test, my objection was “proof texting” which most often consists of stringing verses together from various contexts to make them justify a position which may or may not actually be consistent with the context of the verses used.
I further object to the marginalization of other tests which scripture itself emphasize, by taking verses that speak of these things and hijacking them to make it sound like they are saying “test everything by scripture ALONE”. This was exactly what you (and apparently John McArther, though lack of quotation marks make it difficult to see where quotes begin and end) did when you sited, 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22, 1 John 4:1, 2 Peter 1:3-4, and Ephesians 4:14.
The problem Paul is that you take scripture and point it in on itself, but scripture itself points outward toward God and his redemptive work between him and us and us and our neighbors.
Now you expand your proof texting methods to bible commentary proofs that you cut and paste in large paragraphs for your arguments rather than really consider the issue I had with your argument and the way it used scripture in the paragrpah you cut and pasted from John McArther. If I disagree with Gill, are you going to pass the buck on that one too and ask me to take it up in a letter to him even though he died 240 years ago? Why are Gill and McArther suddenly your authority on these matters to you? Does the context of McArther’s paragraph about “thinking biblically”, trump the actual context of the scripture?
As for John McArther as someone who has “proven himself in the area of rightly dividing the word of truth” I could not disagree more, for the reasons just mentioned. You have not dealt at all with any of the actual context of the verses that were quoted. The closest you came was cut and pasting Wesley commentary on just one of them, and even that doesn’t change my point.
So Wesley agrees with me in that prophesy spoken of here isn’t scripture, and then Wesley likens it to “preaching”. Wesley said that “preaching” should not be despised, but all of it should be tested. Ok, I am tracking with that. But just because Wesley also points to scripture as a method of testing, and again I am not against this, does not mean that the scripture itself says that testing the spirits is all about testing them according to scripture. This is what you and McArther are doing in the paragraph you provided before. The whole paragraph was about testing everything by the BIBLE, yet the scriptures actually gave far more comprehensive ways to test everything with that is just frankly ignored by you both.
Finally, as for “Rollins Ikon ‘Easter’ gathering”, I don’t know anything about it so I can’t comment either way. This is one of your left field things that you brought into comments to a post that had nothing to do with that. I will say yes though, it should be tested and yes scripture has a vital roll in doing that. But first I have your arguments and methods and apparently John McArther’s in my face to decide what to do with. This is what I am testing right now, this is what I can see enough to begin to weigh. And, again I find them both inconsistent with the Way of Jesus. To be clear, these arguments are not binary, just because I find the arguments you presented lacking does not mean that “Rollins Ikon ‘Easter’ gathering” is somehow right. I will have to seriously consider that too when I learn something about it.
So to answer your question, this is why you should reconsider your ways:
First, the scripture in Ephesians 4 which you and McArther quoted out of context encourages us to seek solidarity and unity with the Body of Christ so that we are not “tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine.” Second 1st John 4, which was also quoted in your comment out of context, tells us to test things whether it “acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.” This test is not just one of intellectual assent, but one of substance as we are to test if the very way of something acknowledges what Jesus looks like with flesh on as John elaborates by saying, “Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God… and if someone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.” Wow, how about that for a test? Kind of reminds you of, “as much as you done to the least of these you have done unto Christ”.
This is why you should reconsider, because while you argue that scripture is about the Bible, the scripture actually is about God and our neighbor. We are one of your neighbors, and we have given you our time and have paid attention to your arguments and your concerns, but your goal does not seem to be to find any common ground with us. You want to have the right answer more than you want to be in any kind of right relationship with us. You have twisted the scripture to support your argument rather than take its advice and seek love, and unity with us as part of the Body. This is plain and simply divisive, again with your only goal that is evident to any of us is just to fight us. This is the spirit you present, and one we are weary in fending off. You should change your ways, or at least your approach for the sake of not being destructive in this small online community as we participate in the body of Christ.
There is a lot in your post.
I do not belive that it is out of context to say what MacArthur said relative to 1 Thes. 5:21-22 and 1 John 4:1:
"First Thessalonians 5:21-22 teaches that it is the responsibility of every Christian to be discerning: “But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil.” The apostle John issues a similar warning when he says, “Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). "
"According to the New Testament, discernment is not optional for the believer — it is required. The key to living an uncompromising life lies in one’s ability to exercise discernment in every area of his or her life."
Do not these verses require that a Christian be discerning in regard to truth and error?
Can't we agree here?
If they do (which they do), then how did MacArthur take these two verses out of context?
MacArthur went on to say this:
"The key to living an uncompromising life lies in one’s ability to exercise discernment in every area of his or her life. For example, failure to distinguish between truth and error leaves the Christian subject to all manner of false teaching. False teaching then leads to an unbiblical mindset, which results in unfruitful and disobedient living — a certain recipe for compromise."
Do you agree or disagree?
Apparently, your "big issue" is with this part of MacArthur's article:
"Unfortunately, discernment is an area where most Christians stumble. They exhibit little ability to measure the things they are taught against the infallible standard of God’s Word...
And..this part:
"Discernment intersects the Christian life at every point. And God’s Word provides us with the needed discernment about every issue of life."
What other tests should a Christian employ other than by "Scripture ALONE", which you objected to?
Your statement here confuses me:
"I further object to the marginalization of other tests which scripture itself emphasize..."
Wouldn't these "other tests which scripture itself emphasizes" be included in the "Scripture ALONE" category? These other tests that you refer to are mentioned in scripture, right?
This statement also confused me:
"But just because Wesley also points to scripture as a method of testing, and again I am not against this, does not mean that the scripture itself says that testing the spirits is all about testing them according to scripture. This is what you and McArther are doing in the paragraph you provided before. The whole paragraph was about testing everything by the BIBLE, yet the scriptures actually gave far more comprehensive ways to test everything with that is just frankly ignored by you both."
If the scripture gives "far more comprehensive ways to test everything", isn't that still a scriptural test?
And...Isn't historical context important? What is the historical context of I John 4? Wasn't the false teaching of Gnosticism a problem for the Church at this time? Wouldn't the 1 John 4 test quickly reveal the false teaching of the Gnostics in John's day? Is every false teacher a Gnostic today? Or, might we need to employ other biblical tests to reveal the false teaching of other types of false teachers?
Sure...Ephesians 4 is about unity, but if not by God's Word (scripture) and if not by scriptural teaching (via God's Word), what do apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers utilize to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ will be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature...?
Why is it out of context to utilize Ephesians 4:14 in an article about biblical discernment?
14Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.
Will not properly employed discernment prevent a Christian from being tossed back and forth by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming?
What other tool (other than God's Word) should a Christian use in preventing being battered about by the false teaching of cunning, crafty, deceitful and scheming men/women? What do you suggest?
You said: "This is why you should reconsider, because while you argue that scripture is about the Bible..."
No...I don't.
You said: "...the scripture actually is about God and our neighbor."
Now...here, you and I can find some common ground! Why? Because:
Jesus said to him, “‘you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
(Matthew 22:37 – 40)
Regards,
You ask.. "Wouldn't these "other tests which scripture itself emphasizes" be included in the "Scripture ALONE" category? These other tests that you refer to are mentioned in scripture, right?"
Yes, they are mentioned in scripture, but no, they are not in the "Scripture ALONE" category, because these tests ask you to interact with context, situations, surrounding, and one another that exists in the real world beyond the text. "Scripture Alone" says that the only test that can be used is finding out what the text says.
You ask, "If the scripture gives "far more comprehensive ways to test everything", isn't that still a scriptural test?" I would say yes it is still scriptural, but it is not sola scriptora "scripture alone".
You ask.. "Why is it out of context to utilize Ephesians 4:14 in an article about biblical discernment?"
Because McArther re-frames the context of Ephesians 4:14 to fit the context of his paragraph. Even your question here infers this reality. By reframing the context to fit his paragraph he changes the meaning of the verse in its own context.
You ask, "What other tests should a Christian employ other than by "Scripture ALONE", which you objected to? And you ask, "What other tool (other than God's Word) should a Christian use in preventing being battered about by the false teaching of cunning, crafty, deceitful and scheming men/women? What do you suggest?"
What does scripture say in Ephesians 4, the whole chapter? Read the answer for yourself, I think you will find the answer is as much about orthopraxy in relation to one another as it is about orthodoxy, what Christ did for us.
Thank you for ending with finding some common ground by quoting Matthew 22.
You are welcome.
But, I think that we are unnecessarily disagreeing with one another and you with MacArthur by you getting stuck on your own mentioned "Scripture ALONE" label. MacArthur didn't say "Scripture ALONE" and I didn't either, especially in the context that you are framing it.
Wouldn't we both agree that in order to practice biblical discernment one would have to employ a scriptural test? Can't we, at least, agree on this general statement? Can't we also agree that, as Christians, we are to discern, through scriptural tests (and scriptural texts), whether a person is teaching truthfully or falsely?
I am betting that you and I would agree with the above statements and that you and I would also agree with the actual scriptural tests as found in scripture.
Are we on common ground here, yet?
And...as far as Ephesians 4, I have read the whole chapter, and I agree, in at least part, I think, with what you are saying. I don't know anyone who would disagree with you. After we accept Christ by faith, we are a new creature (as I mentioned above and was accused of using a Pauline construct and Pauline theology), a member of the body of Christ being prepared and built up (via God's Word) for works of service until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature...Then we will no longer be infants tossed back and forth by false teachers...Instead speak the truth in love...don't live as the Gentiles do...futile in their thinking...darkened in their understanding of God and separated from the life of God...You, however did not come to know Christ that way...Surely, you heard of him and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus...You were taught to put off your old self...to be made new in the attitude of your minds...and to be like God in true righteousness and holiness...do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths...forgive one another just as in Christ God forgave you.
Regards,
This may be semantics, but I am not that comfortable with the term of "biblical" discernment, at least I am not comfortable limiting our discernment to just the bible. It just seems so inverted. We need to discern how we interact with the real world. Scripture can and should guide us in this, but we are not just discerning the bible, but our life context and how we should live according to the WAY in it.
I am not unconcerned about false teaching, but when orthodoxy is "protected" at the expense of orthopraxy we arrive at neither.
As you see in Ephesians 4 Paul never separates the two; orthodoxy and orthopraxy. They are linked together in a way that can not be torn apart. I do not disregard the application you added of "(via God's Word)" as a point of clarification to Paul's comments about being built up as the Body of Christ. However, I would caution that avoiding being tossed to and from by every wind of doctrine takes more than what most people think of when they use the term "think biblicly".
Your addition and clarification of "(via God's Word)" (I assume you mean bible teaching) to the passage while not wrong, it is also is not the emphasis of Paul's point. Community plays a vital part in imparting Christian orthodoxy that we often have a hard time getting our head around in our individualistic, "personal bible study" and "Jesus as my personal Savior" culture.
It is not that what I suggest is unbiblical, you can see from my view of Ephesians 4 that it is not. It is just that "thinking biblicaly", and "sound teaching" is often reduced to whatever is considered "right thinking" more than "right living." At best we tend not to emphasize all of Paul instruction to protect us from unorthodox Christian lives.
As we are connected to the Body of Christ as Paul prescribes so that we can "reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ", and we are no longer tossed back and forth by crafty false teachers, we learn an orthodoxy that is connected to orthopraxy by living out the Word made flesh in the body of Christ among one another. This is a far more robust view of ensuring an orthodoxy/orthopraxy than just "thinking biblical".
I just think that when most people speak of being "biblical" they are not thinking of this in robust ways. If anything, I might argue it isn't "biblical" enough when "biblical" is just reduced to right teaching that has little to do with right living.
As for common ground I think that we likely are not as far off as our differing vocabulary may lead us to believe. I am sure you believe in "right living", I just think that the way we tend to think about being "biblical" in our Christian culture ironically and unfortunately marginalizes what scripture actually teaches.
I do hope this conversation is becoming a bit more fruitful. I appreciate what I sense is an effort on your part to find some common ground for some shared context even as we may continue to disagree, perhaps even strongly. But, I think if we can learn anything from Paul's teaching in Ephesians, it is that finding this kind of solidarity in Christ with one another that plays a vital role in helping us all become more orthodox.
Peace,
James
"If anything, I might argue it isn't "biblical" enough when "biblical" is just reduced to right teaching that has little to do with right living."
I agree with you and would "argue" along side of you in this regard.
In fact, I did "argue" that very point in an above post in which one of the contributors stated that the Bible does not give us direction in regard to how to live the Christian life in the 21st century.
Regards,
You said: "Finally, as for “Rollins Ikon ‘Easter’ gathering”, I don’t know anything about it so I can’t comment either way. This is one of your left field things that you brought into comments to a post that had nothing to do with that.
You can listen to the Ikon "Easter" gathering on the provided link in the above post. Listen to it and put it to a biblical discernment test and please let me know what you think.
I had already explained, in a previous comment, why bringing up Rollins and his Ikon "Easter" gathering was not a "left field thing". See below:
"I thought that there was a context for the introduction of Rollins and that the input flowed with the discusion as it was evolving.
When this is our unfettered by biblical contraints approach:
"At least in my context we finally befriended enough bouncers/strippers/bartenders/fornicators/what-have-yous that the uptight churchy people took their righteous indignation and sanitary theology elsewhere."
Rollins, Ikon, and their type of "Easter" gathering are the eventual outcome.
I think that this is a very legitimate and consistent issue related to the discussion. The premise behind the poem and many of the comments is that the Church, with its "sanitary theology and uptight people, has failed
in reaching the bouncers/strippers/bartenders/fornicators/homosexuals/what-have-yous with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I believe that the removal of the so-called "sanitary theology and uptight people" will result in communities and gatherings like Ikon that are devoid of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. What good is that to the bouncers/strippers/bartenders/fornicators/homosexuals/what-have-yous?"
Is this not reasonable?
You, also, said: "You should change your ways, or at least your approach for the sake of not being destructive in this small online community as we participate in the body of Christ."
Not to be offensive, but why is it a legitimate pursuit for the emergents to deconstruct orthodox Christianity, but not for me, or others, to deconstruct a portion of the "emergent conversation"?
Regards,
As for your next question, I never said you can't "deconstruct the emergent conversation". That's not the problem, the problem is the way it happens here both in process and approach.
It has become evident to me that even some of my contributors don't know the difference between a forum and a blog. If this were a forum, you could start a new thread about Ikon and Rollins if you wanted to. This would be far more orderly. But the comment section of a blog is not that technically robust and just is not equipped to handle that kind of indepth discussion where conversations can take off in different directions and have different threads.
The second issue is that it feels like you are often just trying to pick a fight. Some of this perception may again be because of the limits of the format. But regardless, I am just not interested in fighting and whether it is because of your persistence and/or because the limits of a blog to go as indepth as you want to go, the end result does not seem to be a fruitful conversation but instead regresses into a fight. I am not sure why you would want that anymore than we do, unless you want to pick a fight with your only objective being "winning" the argument.
Well...I am persistent.
And...I don't want to belabor the point, but, given that this blog and its contributors have promoted Rollins to one degree or another, I don't think that he and the issue can be so easily dismissed by saying that you are not part of that community.
In a "direct" sense you are obviously not, but in broader "indirect" sense I believe that you are because of your community's inclusion of him and his ideas. His emerging christianity and the ideas behind them are what led to his ridiculous "Easter" heretical gathering.
Regards,
Finally let me suggest what you suggested to me about MacArther who you specifically quoted even though we did not specifically quote anything in regards to Rollins Ikon service. Why don't you send him an email.
I included the link to Ikon's "Easter" gathering. You can hear the entire thing for yourself.
Regards,
If I ever use it, I'll be sure to credit you, as you asked.