Friday Funny - Seriously Satirical Stuff!
Thanks to TeamPyro
The comments are just as funny!
Sola says…
No, no, no, Daryl. It’s supposed to be “your truth is your truth and my truth is my truth.” Never “it might be true for you but I don’t think it’s true for you.” Be careful here. You’re risking a rift in the time-space continuum by making statements like that. Think of all the religious relativists whose tenuous faith will careen off the beaten path by such a notion that someone’s truth might not be true at all.
Response by Daryl…
help me sola, help me. i’m trapped in a modernist mind-set, i’ll never get the post-modern thing right!! i feel so rotten…
maybe i’ll just hang on and see what the next fad is, maybe i can fit in there…
I’m outta here… the weekend beckons.
Update on little Hitler’s speech - What was censored out!
Go to the Bible, you Can Not be serious!
I don’t normally refer to mp3 sound-bites, but I have found some worth listening to. It’s a break down on Doug Pagitt and his chat with a lady about the Oh-so conservative and outta-touch kinda guy John MacArthur. Doug Pagitt who is the man of the moment for the ‘PoMo-Emer‘ crowd shared his thoughts about MacArthur’s old-fangled, old-fashioned, out-of-date, outmoded and outworn views on Christians practising yoga with a woman after the interview. Pagitt has also been known to call John MacArthur’s view on the gospel ‘Perverted‘ and he doesn’t use that term lightly by any means.
I guess the bible is old-fangled, old-fashioned, out-of-date, outmoded and well as being outworn. I seem to remember someone saying that the bible is the dusty old love letters to the Church. In fact, yes, I still have the book that says this. (Tommy Tenney)
I won’t elaborate further on the mouldy old pages of the bible, with its increasingly irrelevant old truth being hacked up today. Today’s movement of cutting edge connoisseurs - taste test this, taste test that religion - are pursuing ecumenical unity while completely disregarding - and even denying - that any absolute truth actually exists. They are absolutely sure that absolute surety cannot be absolutely known for sure - because it doesn’t really exist… does it?
I ask them … are you really sure about that???
But before I give you the link to the sound-bites I will post the actual video of the interview in question.
First here is Pagitt’s take on the interview and his conversation with the woman.
Then the following mp3 comes from ‘Way of the Master Radio’ and it is Todd Friel take about the above conversation. Here is the recording about the above conversation and I find it very telling in how the bible is becoming more and more irrelevant for our 21st century post-modern and multi-cultural so called harmonious society.
I will just leave you with this…
Our worldview will determine how we process information and in turn what we believe. In theory, at least, Christians should possess a biblical worldview shaped by the study of Scripture. In actuality, too often our philosophy of living (worldview) is formed by other forces around us including our culture. Dr Gary E Gilley
Related post by Carla
Postmodern Translator - Funny as!
EMERGING CHURCH ADDS U.N. TRANSLATOR TO STAFF
JUNE 2007 — Soul Village Fellowship, a church for postmodern “Christ-followers” in Fort Collins, CO, has announced the recent hiring of Miller Conway as an interpreter for their Sunday morning service. Conway, a former UN translator, has been given the task of translating Pastor Jay Windom’s sermons for those in the congregation who are still struggling with understanding the church’s ongoing “emerging conversation.” Read the rest HERE.
From the folks of Sacred Sandwich
Vertical produces Horizontal - It’s all gone topsy turvy!
I have been hung up lately on the Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Everything I come across lately seems to indicate that there is a different understanding of the Blood Atonement - a rather large schism if you like - between the more conservative bunch and the more liberal bunch who delve into Higher Criticism.
The politically correct atonement that is being discussed lately is the not so violent or barbaric with a not so in your face kinda God who, on one hand really loves, while on the other hand requires the death of His only son and blood shed to show us His loving Grace etcetera.
How to reconcile this is the question that many are asking!
My hope is that they search the scriptures (all of them, not just the NT) to find out how this seemingly paradoxical conundrum can be understood within its whole context. Not our cultural context but within biblical context, there is a very real difference. Remember, taking a verse a word or even a concept out of its context is always a pretext. Historical Grammatical interpretation is what’s needed here.
The three posts I have previously written on this topic are…
You can get a background of where I am coming from with those posts.
One post in particular, led me to do some research and I came across this little gem that summed up the problem nicely…
In recent times some have thought that reconciliation ought to be seen in what we may term a horizontal rather than a vertical direction. Sin is thought of as something that erects barriers between a man and his neighbour, rather than between a man and his God. Reconciliation then becomes a way of enabling men to live together in meaningful community. there is , of course, something in this, for the man who has felt the healing touch of Christ upon his life is concerned with breaking down barriers which divide men.
But there must be a right order here. First comes reconciliation of the sinner with God, then reconciliation with man follows. Ephesians 2 is instructive in this connection. There, in connection with the great division of men into Jews and Gentiles, it is pointed out that Gentiles were separated from Christ as well as from one another. But the blood of Christ that brought them near to God brought them also near to one another. Peace was made between man and man, but it was the consequence of peace between man and God. (J. Denney, The Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation 191
Did you notice that it said that it was in recent times that this horizontal view of atonement was being considered. As recent as 1918 it seems. ( hmmm, not so long ago is it really?)
What we are hearing today is nothing new at all, the McClarens, the Pagitts, the Bells and all others of like-minded people are just rehashing something that has been around for longer than they care to realise. Wanting to stay culturally relevant and hip means espousing the so called new concepts and new ideas. Certainly there is a new generation that is hearing this concept for the first time.
But is it anything really new, or is it just something that the Church has had to contend with throughout her history in various different forms? I have a strong feeling that this concept, and others like it that lead people away from the offence of the cross have been around for a lot longer than people realise.
Gnosticism and mysticism have plagued the Church since her birth. Paul wrote about sound doctrine no longer being endured! Satan really doesn’t want people to understand nor accept what Christ did for us on that old rugged cross. Of course he is trying to get people to practice the ‘fig leaf atonement!‘ It suits him. That is his agenda!
I think that the following quote written by Dr. Gary Gilley sums up my thoughts pretty well…
It does not seem to be an option to the emergent church that both social injustices and eternal redemption can be and have been attended to by God’s people. But, despite opinions to the contrary, the priority of Scripture is on man’s relationship to God. It is because men are alienated from God that they mistreat one another. The spiritually redeemed and transformed person should and will care about social sins.
But, again, the gospel is about man’s alienation from God and what He has done through Christ to reconcile us to Himself (Romans 5:6-11), not about the ozone layer and elimination of poverty. Neither Jesus nor the apostles made these latter things the focus of their ministries; it was the reconciliation of souls to God that was at the heart of their message. Once we begin to draw our gospel from the culture, no matter what culture that might be, we have altered the true gospel. Emergent leaders are not wrong to be concerned about the environment and social injustice; they are wrong to confuse it with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Dr Gary Gilley
Emergent/cy
A popular website for the emerging reformation called ‘Emerging Grace’ posted something that doesn’t sit quite right within the emergent camp… how many times do I wanna say emergent/ing. Anyway, it’s all about Mark Driscoll and the problems he has with 3 guys in particular ( Those being McClaren, Pagitt and Bell) who are pretty much the movers and shakers of the Emer’s. This from a post called ‘The Emerging Streams Just got Muddier‘.
In my reading this evening I came across the fact that Mark Driscoll spoke at a southern baptist conference this weekend. The reports I read so far indicate that Mark has confirmed the southern baptists’ fears concerning the emerging church, and maybe thrown a few old friends under the bus.
From conference attendees:
“He talked about how Brian McClaren, Doug Pagitt, Rob Bell are basically sell outs when it comes to Scriptural integrity. He presented a strong case and held nothing back. Interesting stuff. Without a doubt, this is the most direct, I’ve heard Mark address these issues.
He specifically cited their views on the Atonement, views on homosexuality,rabbinical study, their influences, and theology. There were some very vivid conversations and references to the virgin Mary and McClaren’s new organization, “Deep SHIfT“.” (Travis Johnson)
Travis Johnson was the one reporting the low down on Driscoll’s take on the 3 guys aformentioned and the 3 streams of emergent. This is his brief point by point break down of the conference.
- the difference between the three streams of the emerging church (the relevants, the Emergents, and the confessional contextual calvinists).
- how that Brian McClaren, Doug Pagitt, Rob Bell are basically sell outs when it comes to Scriptural integrity. He presented a strong case and held nothing back. Interesting stuff. Without a doubt, this is the most direct, I’ve heard Mark address these issues.
- He specifically cited their views on the Atonement, views on homosexuality, rabbinical study, their influences, and theology.
- There were some very vivid conversations and references to the virgin Mary and McClaren’s new organization, “Deep SHIfT“.
- Most importantly, he spoke of how there is a generation of people on the scene now who have no historical knowledge of the Church and how we must engage them.
- If we fail to do so, the Church will continue to compete for an ever shrinking circle of angry children of liberal or fundamentalist religious people.
- Rather than embracing syncretism or sectarianism, we must practice the art of subversion.
- We must follow Paul’s example in Acts 17 and “Go and see” the world. We must understand our culture and speak effectively to it whil remaining faithful to the message of Jesus.
Nice!
Meanwhile the Pyro guys have noted that there are definitely two ‘Different Gospels‘ which are becoming all the more self evident as time goes by. Crazy but true … they have noticed that the line in the sand is being drawn, however cautiously.
Praise God I say! I wonder if we are witnessing a post-emergent move about to happen, as Phil notes…
However you look at it, this has been a seriously hard week for the Emerging/Emergent conversation. I’m thinking of trying to trademark the name “Post-Emergent,” because I think it’s going to be really, really useful very soon now. @Pyromaniacs
I hope you’re right Phil!
Pehaps we can call those who post- emerge — Po-Emers or PoMers — still holding onto that whole ‘PoMo’ theme so they don’t feel quite so outed!
Protesting on Two fronts
As protesters were doing their prostesting thing in New York, the so called Hitler wannabe President was fortunate enough to get the opportunity to speak at Columbia University as an invited guest.
While this was all happening another not-so-in-your-face protest was happening. The UN Watch dog Hillel Neuer, is fighting the same fight against the same guy, without so much media attention.
Mr. President, we meet to address urgent human rights situations. There are so many. But if we look to the highest authorities of the UN, one country stands out: the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security. But the illicit nuclear program of President Ahmadinejad potentially threatens these rights for millions, near and far. That’s why the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII against threats to the peace, held Iran to be in breach, and imposed sanctions.
The Iranian leader speaks at the UN about “human dignity and justice.” Yet the UN itself — GA Resolution 61/176 — found that Iran treats its own people with neither dignity nor justice. It called on Iran:
* to end its use of torture, and cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment;
* to end its execution of minors, and its violence and discrimination against women;
* to end its discrimination against minorities, including Arabs, Azeris, Baluchis, Kurds, Christians, Jews, Sufis, Sunni Muslims, and the Baha’i.Dr. Hamburg, an advisor to the Secretary-General on genocide, said that he could not recall anyone “since Hitler who so repeatedly and explicitly called for genocide,” and he warned of the combustible conjunction of this with nuclear weapons capability[...] (For the full transcript see ‘Indict Iran’s President Ahmadinejad‘ Speech to UN Human Rights Council Delivered by Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch, Sept. 24, 2007)
Related Articles
I may be changing themes? I think!
Ok, just to let people know that if they come across my blog and it looks a little different, I may be in the middle of changing themes.
I have to adjust a few widget badges for correct size, but for now I am just going to change to a new theme that I have been thinking about for the last few weeks.
Readers, can you please let me know if you like the new theme and find it easy to navigate, that would be most helpful as I don’t want to waste my time with a theme that just doesn’t work for my style of blog.
Thanks in advance
V
Violent Act or an Example of sacrifice? Penal Substitutionary Atonement under attack!
I have just been emailed something written by Roger Oakland about the Emerging Church and their view on the ‘Blood Atonement of Christ’. I thought I would share it for you as it speaks about the movers and shakers of those within this movement and how they have come to re-understand the cross of Christ.
Roger Oakland says this about the ‘Blood Atonement’…
The heart and core of the Christian faith is the gospel of Jesus Christ according to the Scriptures. This foundational belief is under attack by many who are considered to be leaders of the Emerging Church movement that is sweeping the world and “re-inventing” Christianity.
The heart and core of the Christian faith is based upon Jesus Christ’s shed blood at Calvary as the only acceptable substitutionary atonement for mankind’s sins. The Gospel message requires this foundation. The Bible says the wages of sin is death—thus every person alive should receive the penalty of spiritual death because none of us is without sin, since we are born with our sin nature intact. Satan hates the Gospel message. He understands what the Gospel means, and his agenda is to deceive mankind from understanding and believing so they can suffer eternally with him.
The new way of thinking about the ‘Penal Substitutionary Atonement’ stands in stark contrast to what the bible explicitly tell us about the work of Christ and His sacrifice on the cross.
When you read the following from teachers who are considered to be masters at higher cristicism…
The Church’s fixation on the death of Jesus as the universal saving act must end, and the place of the cross must be reimagined in Christian faith. Why? Because of the cult of suffering and the vindictive God behind it. Alan Jones, Reimagining Christianity (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Sons, 2005), p. 132.
And this from Alan Jones…
The other thread of just criticism addresses the suggestion implicit in the cross that Jesus’ sacrifice was to appease an angry God. Penal substitution [the Cross] was the name of this vile doctrine.
You gotta ask yourself… why are they re-wording the Word…
I let go of the notion that the Bible is a divine product. I learned that it is a human cultural product, the product of two ancient communities, biblical Israel and early Christianity. As such, it contained their understandings and affirmations, not statements coming directly or somewhat directly from God.… I realized that whatever “divine revelation” and the “inspiration of the Bible” meant (if they meant anything), they did not mean that the Bible was a divine product with divine authority. Marcus Borg The God We Never Knew (New York, NY: HarperCollins, First HarperCollins Paperback Edition, 1998), p. 25.
These movers and shakers say that there is one main bunch of people who are the BIGGEST PROBLEM for them being able to move forward into Ecumenical Unity. In their own words, it is the fundies who are the ones that are the divisive ones, fundies just can’t get over the substitutionary atonement…
Were you to talk to that fundamentalist preacher, he doubtless would insist that you must believe in the “substitutionary” theory of atonement—namely, that Jesus suffered as a substitute for us the punishment due us for our sins. But can you imagine a modern courtroom in a civilized country where an innocent man would be deliberately punished for another man’s crime? … Substitutionary atonement … came a long way down in history in many a penal system. But now it is a precivilized barbarity; no secular court would tolerate the idea for a moment; only in certain belated theologies is it retained as an explanation of our Lord’s death … Christ’s sacrificial life and death are too sacred to be so misrepresented.. Harry Emerson Fosdick, Dear Mr. Brown, op. cit., p. 136.
Funny thing to think that God’s court should even be considered to be a secular one anyway, what’s with that??? I was under the impression that it would be a theocratic one, one ruled by Christ Himself when He comes again! Secular, I think NOT!!!
Related Posts
Yom Kippur - Life in the blood
Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.
All this talk about the blood atonement that is bantered about lately curiously falls around Israel’s holiday of Yom Kippur. (See ‘What’s with the blood‘ and ‘Stricken by God‘). The need for a blood atonement has always offended people, from a Christian perspective it is called the offence of the cross. I wonder if Adam and Eve were offended when God sacrificed an animal to cover Adam and Eve’s sin? The blood atonement is an affront to mankind, full-stop.
Trying to skirt around the horrid nature of atonement and obviously the disagreeable reality of the blood that is needed to bring back man and reconcile him with his creator, is a failure to see ones fallen nature and ones sin in all its horridness, brutal, barbaric and diagreeable reality. One needs to clean it up so one does not see the truth of the matter! Clean it up, make it not so brutal, happily 
look away from that nasty mess, put on the biggest rose coloured glasses imaginable and think of happy thoughts. (See ‘re words‘ and ‘That cursed Fig Tree‘)
Anyway, after emailing a very hard working friend of mine he mentioned this word - hilasterion - to me, which is the greek word for propitiation found in this verse…
Rom 3:25 whom God set forth as a propitiation through faith in His blood, as a demonstration of His righteousness through the passing over of the sins that had taken place before, in the forbearance of God,
What does this word relate to? It relates to the mercy seat, the lid that covers ‘The Ark of the Covenant’. The blood of atonement was to be sprinkled on this Ark, and now we have the completed fulfillment of this by the blood of Christ mentioned throughout the NT. It is in fact one of the main themes of the NT, if not THE main theme.
To deny this bloody sacrifice - it is, what it is - is to deny the whole works of the cross and the fulfillment of the law required of God. To deny it is to come under the works of the law again. Rememeber …
Rom 3:25-30 whom God set forth as a propitiation through faith in His blood, as a demonstration of His righteousness through the passing over of the sins that had taken place before, in the forbearance of God, for a demonstration of His righteousness in the present time, for His being just and justifying the one that is of the faith of Jesus. Then where is the boasting? It was excluded. Through what law? Of works? No, but through a Law of faith. Then we conclude a man to be justified by faith without works of Law. Or is He the God of Jews only, and not also of the nations? Yes, of the nations also, since it is one God who will justify circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
By faith we are justified. The law points to our sin, the law points to the blood needed for appeasement, penal substitutionary atonement and reconcilation because of our sin, the law if followed without the faith that Christ has fulfilled the law makes us guilty of every law even if we commit just one thing against the law of God.
Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all.
Don’t try to white wash it!
Related Article
