Several close relations of mine are involved, to varying degrees, with the enormous mission organization, Youth With a Mission (YWAM). I have some issues with YWAM. One of these close relations asked if I would spell out precisely what my gripes are. I will do so here, and in no particular order:
1. Radical Contextualization – John Travis has developed a “C1-C6 Spectrum”, defining levels of contextualization for Islamic outreach. At level C5, a convert is allowed to remain completely within the Islamic community and refer to himself as a Muslim.
YWAM makes available an article by Travis and Steve Cochrane entitled, “Muslims for Jesus”. This article and another by Cochrane on Travis’ C5 level of contextualization are posted on YWAM’s Article Library, but are locked for YWAM staff only. I found useful information on YWAM and C5 at letusreason.org and InVision (Mission to the World’s newsletter).
To be fair, I have read that Travis’ spectrum is controversial even within the ranks of YWAM leaders. That this would be embraced by even some is disappointing. While I recognize the tremendous persecution facing the Muslim convert, and feel a sense of awkwardness in speaking about this from the comforts of American suburbia, Christ calls us out of darkness into light. Islam is not a redeemable religion or culture. Like all religions, worldviews and cultures opposed to Christ’s gospel, it is a handiwork of Satan.
Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.”
2 Corinthians 6:14-18
- John Piper on contextualization
2. Egalitarianism
In 2000, Loren Cunningham (YWAM founder) co-wrote Why Not Women: A Biblical Study of Women In Missions, Ministry and Leadership with David Hamilton. YWAM leadership has taken a clear stand on this issue. Unfortunately, it takes the wrong stand.
I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
I Timothy 2:12-14
On what does Paul found the prohibition on women in leadership and teaching roles over men? Unique cultural circumstances? No. Paul founds this prohibition in Genesis 2 & 3 - The Creation Account. I won’t indulge a tangent on gender complementarianism here, but I don’t know how you talk yourself around this text.
What is most disturbing about egalitarianism is not the sight of a skirt behind a pulpit, but the hermeneutic employed to avoid the clear teaching of texts like I Timothy 2. The “cultural” argument used to defend egalitarianism is almost identical to the defense of homosexuality found here and elsewhere.
- Steve Heitland leaves YWAM due to its commitment to egalitarianism
- Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, John Piper and Wayne Grudem. A must-read for anyone desiring to understand the complementarian (Biblical) view of gender roles.
3. Moral Government Theology - While YWAM no longer endorses this false teaching, I believe its lingering effect on the organization can be seen in its tacit endorsement of Open Theism (see YWAM reading recommendations under 7. below).
4. Identificational Repentance
“For me at least this is very new. I have been a Christian for 45 years, and I never once recall hearing a sermon from the pulpit on identificational repentance. I have four graduate degrees in religion from respectable academic institutions, and I was never taught a class on the subject. You do not find the issue raised in the writings of Martin Luther or John Calvin or John Wesley.
Fortunately, we now have a textbook on the subject, namely John Dawson’s remarkable book, Healing America’s Wounds (Regal Books). In my opinion, this is one of the books of the decade for Christian leaders of all denominations. Only because we now have access to this book has the United Prayer Track or the AD2000 Movement been bold enough to declare 1996 as the year to ‘Heal the Land,’ featuring massive initiatives for repentance and reconciliation on every continent of the world. This is so important to me that I require my students at Fuller Theological Seminary to read Healing America’s Wounds and I invite John Dawson himself to come in and help me teach my classes.”
- C. Peter Wagner, “The Power to Heal the Past,” Renewal Journal, 1996.
John Dawson is the International President of YWAM. Dawson helped found the International Reconciliation Coalition in 1990.
“From 1996-99 he [Lynn Green] directed the “Reconciliation Walk,” mobilizing thousands of Christians to prayerfully retrace the route of the First Crusade, helping to defuse 900 years of bitterness between Muslims, Christians and Jews.”
- Lynn Green’s YWAM Leadership page.
Lynn Green is the International Chairman of YWAM.
Identificational repentance is the unbiblical notion that Christians can and should repent for the sins of their forebears. While it is certainly appropriate for the Christian to recognize sins of the past, condemn them and repent for personally participating in them presently, there is no scriptural warrant for repenting for someone else’s sin. (Paul Gowdy has written about this issue here.)
While I believe identificational repentance is per se unbiblical, the underlying reason for this practice/theology is even more disturbing. The whole concept fits into a larger spiritual warfare model. It is believed that demonic strongholds can be broken if a particular region’s generational sins are repented of. This is part and parcel of the territorial spirits, spiritual mapping, generational curses… view of spiritual warfare that is rampant in many Charismatic circles, and is promulgated by the likes of Wagner, Dawson and Green.
5. Dominionism - In Making Jesus Lord, Loren Cunningham states the following (p. 134):
“Sometimes God does something dramatic to get our attention. That’s what happened to me in 1975. My family and I were enjoying the peace and quiet of a borrowed cabin in the Colorado Rockies. I was stretched out on a lounge chair in the midday warmth, praying and thinking. I was considering how we Christians - not just the mission I was a part of, but all of us - could turn the world around for Jesus.
A list came to my mind: categories of society which I believed we should focus on in order to turn nations around to God. I wrote them down, and stuck the paper in my pocket.
The next day, I met with a dear brother, the leader of Campus Crusade for Christ, Dr. Bill Bright. He shared with me something God had given him - several areas to concentrate on to turn the nations back to God! They were the same areas, with different wording here and there, that were written on the page in my pocket. I took it out and showed Bill and we shook our heads in amazement.
Here’s a list (refined and clarified a bit over the years) that God gave me that sunny day in Colorado: 1. The home, 2. The church, 3. Schools, 4. Government, 5. The media, 6. Arts, entertainment and sports, 7. Commerce, science and technology.
These seven spheres of influence will help us shape societies for Christ.”
Lance Wallnau, the man who relayed the stories of Cunningham and Bright to C. Peter Wagner, is seen here speaking of the 7 Mountains (spheres of influence):
“…it only takes three to five percent of a population to create a tipping point that creates a culture… because the minority occupying the high places are stronger than the majority that are irrelevant. You’ve got thirty percent evangelicals in the United States, with a five percent minority that is controlling how the agenda works. How could that happen? It happens because we put more energy on making converts than taking converts into the high places.”
According to Wallnau, it seems the Great Commission is all backward. We’re to save cultures, not individuals. This is pure dominionism. We are to preach the Gospel, in season and out of season, to individual human beings from every tribe, language, people and nation. Nowhere in Scripture is the Christian advised to “disciple nations”. (Matthew 28:18-20 is clearly referring to individuals, not nations. I don’t know how one would go about baptizing a nation.)
This is scary stuff. The “…majority (i.e. the poor and powerless)… are irrelevant”? I’m sure Wallnau would retract or clarify this statement if confronted with it, but I think, from a dominionist perspective, it’s right. While there are variations on the theme, Dominionism (Kingodm Now, Manifest Sons of God) essentially teaches that Christians are to dominate the world scene (and all of its seven spheres of influence) before Christ returns. At the Fall, man and God lost dominion of the earth. God is now seeking a people to take it back for Him. (Some see Christ returning to a Church that has dominated and conquered the earth for Him; presenting it as a wedding gift to the Bridegroom.)
If dominion is the goal, then the unwashed masses have no primary concern for the Christian. The powerful, the rich, the influential - the movers and shakers - they’re the ones we need to convert or become. It’s all very efficient. Once a particular culture is dominated or Christianized, the irrelevant majority will fall in line like sheep. The goal is no longer to preach the Good News to lost people, trusting in God’s sovereign grace to call forth His elect. It is now the “Christianization” of cultures - to move a very small number of Christians into the “high places” of influence and power.
The practical political ramifications of this view are obvious and frightening. When reading dominionist literature, I begin to understand the fears some on the secular left have in regards to some on the religious right.
Furthermore, this robs God of His sovereignty. Nothing has ever, is now, or ever will happen outside of God’s will. If we are chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4), then God planned and predestined the Cross before Creation. Therefore, the Fall is part of God’s plan in history to draw men and women from all nations, tribes and languages to Himself. God did not “lose dominion” of the earth, and He does not need us to take it back for Him.
6. Discernment - Guilt by Association - YWAM has elected to associate with and endorse a host of aberrant and heretical individuals and ministries.
- Benny Hinn
- Loren Cunningham and Joy Dawson have both appeared on Benny Hinn’s program, endorsing him and his ministry. Personally, I find a Hinn endorsement to be, in and of itself, grounds to sever ministry ties, and prima facie evidence of a ministry’s near total lack of discernment.
- International House of Prayer (IHOP)
- Keith Gibson at Sign of Jonah concisely sums up the myriad problems with IHOP here.
- YWAM Leaders Read & Recommend… A lot of really lousy stuff. (And, to be fair, some good stuff. Unfortunately, a little (or much) leaven leaveneth the whole lump.)
- N.T. Wright - Major proponent of New Perspective on Paul (teaches that justification is not about reconciling sinners to God, but a racial reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles). John Piper (among many others) has fought this heresy with a great deal of passion (an example here). The orthodox doctrine of justification (substitutionary atonement) is the bedrock of the Gospel. There is no Christianity without it.
- “I’ve been a YWAMer for twenty-five years but it took Tom Wright to help me understand what the gospel really is–considerably more than an invitation to having sins forgiven and a free pass to heaven when I die. Let’s face it; that’s the message as it is usually presented. Then we wonder why the church is like it is?” - Jeff Romack (YWAM’s regional director for IndoChina & Philippines) in a review of Wright’s What Paul Really Said.
- Greg Boyd – Open Theism
- Steve Goode (YWAM’s Int’l Ministries director for Mercy Ministry) recommends THREE books written by Professor Boyd. If you don’t know the name, Boyd has a local church in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area and teaches Open Theism, or the Open View of God. Boyd believes that God is constrained to time as we are and does not (cannot) know the future. This directly relates to Lynn Green’s article on the Tsunami - both Boyd and Green believe that God is NOT ultimately in control of everything and that God does not purpose all things for our good. God has the best of intentions, but sometimes this sick world throws Him a curveball that He simply is unable to manage. (Just heard an amazing sermon on God’s sovereign purposes in Joseph’s trials and tribulations. I don’t know how you reconcile this account with Open Theism. “As for you, you MEANT evil against me, but God MEANT it for good…”)
- Rob Bell (Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith) - Emergent pastor of Mars Hill Church in Michigan. Recommended by Danny Lehman (YWAM’s Int’l Ministries director for Evangelism).
- Christianity Today on Rob and his wife:
- They tell how they became increasingly disillusioned with church, even the church they were running. But then the breakthrough came when they “discover[ed] the Bible as a human product,” as Rob puts it, rather than the product of divine fiat. “The Bible is still in the center for us,” Rob says, “but it’s a different kind of center. We want to embrace mystery, rather than conquer it.” It was only through their discovery that the Bible is a human product and not a book that was sanctioned or decreed by God that they were able to see things clearly. They continue, “I grew up thinking that we’ve figured out the Bible,” Kristen says, “that we knew what it means. Now I have no idea what most of it means. And yet I feel like life is big again - like life used to be black and white, and now it’s in color.”
- This is typical of emergent teachers. “We don’t know what the Bible really means, so whatever you think it means is cool with us.” While there are certainly difficult texts, if we embrace uncertainty about essential, and clearly taught, biblical doctrines, we run the risk of placing ourselves outside orthodox Christianity.
- Christianity Today on Rob and his wife:
- N.T. Wright - Major proponent of New Perspective on Paul (teaches that justification is not about reconciling sinners to God, but a racial reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles). John Piper (among many others) has fought this heresy with a great deal of passion (an example here). The orthodox doctrine of justification (substitutionary atonement) is the bedrock of the Gospel. There is no Christianity without it.
7. The Sovereignty of God - YWAM tolerates, and at times appears to endorse, Open Theism. I briefly discussed this in regard to Lynn Green’s God and the Tsunami on another post. I believe many of the above problems ultimately relate to this one.
If God is not ultimately in control, behind the wheel of human history, then the accomplishment of His purposes in the earth is, at least in part, up to us. Yes, Christ does call forth His elect, dividing man from brother, bringing the sword of division and promising persecution, but this just isn’t selling in Arab countries. Yes, the Bible speaks clearly about women teaching over men, but if we are to reap the harvest in this generation, we need all the help we can get. No, the Bible nowhere advises us to map territorial spirits, identify generational curses, repent for the crusades… but if we’re not seeing the spiritual results we expect to see in a given area, there must be something we can do to manipulate the spiritual atmosphere. No, the Bible does not instruct us to Christianize or disciple nations, but it is much more expedient than preaching the gospel to individuals – you know, there’s a lot of people out there, and only a handful of nations. Yes, the Bible does instruct us to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints, to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it, but that would offend many, and there’s work to be done.
Missions can become really complicated when God is not in control. If He is, then it’s really simple – not easy, but simple.
And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
Matthew 28:18-20
…
In conclusion, I should state for the record that I believe the average YWAM’er to be a brother/sister in Christ. I don’t believe YWAM is a cult. I also recognize that YWAM is a very large, global mission organization, and that the teaching and leadership will vary from base to base. (This is why I have attempted to focus on the head leadership of the organization.)
That being said, I do believe the above concerns with YWAM are serious. With so many solid mission organizations (e.g. SIM (Serving In Mission), Wycliffe Bible Translators, World Harvest Missions and many others) working the harvest, I see no good reason to invest (financially or otherwise) in an organization infected with so much error.
…
I located much of the above information directly and indirectly from Herescope. While I do not always agree with the critical assessments of various individuals and ministries found there, I have found Herescope to be a great resource for locating hard-to-find information on some of the above-mentioned groups and individuals. I just wanted to give credit where credit is due. Thanks, Herescope!
…
For those who might be interested, my wife’s cousin is a missionary in Kenya. You can learn more about his endeavors here.
—————-
Now playing: The Innocence Mission - Beautiful Change
via FoxyTunes
Jim B.
In light of your article I found this interesting:
http://awm.gospelcom.net/int/article.php?pageid=256
“N.T. Wright - Major proponent of New Perspective on Paul (teaches that justification is not about reconciling sinners to God, but a racial reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles).”
Your lambaste against NT Wright was unfortunately typical, but completely off base. Here’s how Wright defined Justification: (from http://www.thepaulpage.com/Shape.html)
“‘Justification’ is thus the declaration of God, the just judge, that someone is (a) in the right, that their sins are forgiven, and (b) a true member of the covenant family, the people belonging to Abraham.”
Sounds like Orthodoxy to me… Piper and his friends may not like everything NT Wright teaches but I don’t think even they would call him a heretic.
If you want a good reformed perspective on the New Perspectives (since there’s more than one…) try listening to DA Carson’s lecture on the subject: http://www.theologian.org.uk/doctrine/carsonnewperspective.html
Caleb,
Thanks for the DA Carson link - I will try to listen to this in the next week.
I’m not sure I lambasted Wright. He was not the topic of the post, and I admittedly dealt with him and the New Perspective only very briefly. While I do consider the New Perspective, as I understand it, a heresy (false teaching), I did not refer to Wright as a heretic.
Additionally, I reject the notion (implied in the Wright piece you attached to your comment) that men like John Piper (and many others) “just don’t understand” what Wright is saying/teaching. John Piper says here:
“…I think his (Wright’s) understanding of Paul is wrong and his view of justification is harmful to the church and to the human soul. Few things are more precious than the truth of justification by faith alone because of Christ alone. As a shepherd of a flock of God’s blood-bought church, I feel responsible to lead the sheep to life-giving pastures. That is not what the sheep find in Wright’s view of Paul on justification. He is an eloquent and influential writer and is, I believe, misleading many people on the doctrine of justification.”
Piper has recently invested a significant amount of time and energy in writing a book-length treatment (out in October, I think) to counter this false teaching. While John Piper is not the plumb-line of orthodoxy, he is a very well respected preacher and scholar. I simply cannot accept that men like Piper are wasting all of this time and energy combating the New Perspective, if there is (according to you) nothing there to combat.
God Bless
How should we deal with the handicapped? I also do not know how we talk ourselves around this text. The Lord has commanded that children of Israel not come to the altar if they are blemished, including anyone with broken hands, feet, or blemishes in the eye (near or farsightedness?).
Lev. 21:16-24
16And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
17Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.
18For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,
19Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
20Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;
21No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.
22He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.
23Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them.
24And Moses told it unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel.
Mansion,
Could you expand on the above comment? I’m not sure where you’re going.
Thanks and God Bless
Where’s he going is a literal understanding of old testament law applying to Christian life today. God, even in the OT, said, ‘I desire MERCY more than sacrifice’, did He not?
Look to the New Testament for how to live as a Christian today, how to relate to the handicapped, how to live as a child of God and please and worship Him, MansionDweller.
Read and consider the OT in light of the NT, as ’shadows of things to come’, never as a rule of life and practice, for he who lives by the law must fulfill every last commandment, which is IMPOSSIBLE - it is meant to show us our own sufficiency and to bring us, in the deepest of need, to CHRIST, who alone can make us whole and teach us to live in love and peace with our Creator.
God Bless, Will in Russia
http://www.willphyl.com/
http://www.fylliska.blogspot.com/
“Read and consider the OT in light of the NT, as ’shadows of things to come’, never as a rule of life and practice, for he who lives by the law must fulfill every last commandment, which is IMPOSSIBLE - it is meant to show us our own sufficiency and to bring us, in the deepest of need, to CHRIST, who alone can make us whole and teach us to live in love and peace with our Creator.”
How do you harmonize that with Matt. 5:17-20 “[17] Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulill. [18] For thuly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. [19] Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kindgom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20] For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”
I think that what he may be trying to say is that at times the scriptures do not seem to align. As a conservative evangelical, mostly reformed, and Scripture loving Christian, even I have a problem with the Lev. text. It does not match what I know of the Lord. What he says of himself, being holy in all things, good in all things, and just in all things- why would not allow those who look different to not be served by the Priests?
I agree that Rob Bell has fallen off the deep end, but what I love is that it’s ok to ask questions.
Sometimes the Old Testament doesn’t even make sense to me. Questions like, why murder every child of that people group? come to me when I read through the OT and then read how the Israelites were to treat the foreigner with kindness.
I love the scriptures, and I’m not saying they’re wrong. I’m saying it just doesn’t make sense sometimes.
It seems he may be comparing scriptures and then asks the hard question, “How do I get around that text?”
How could God (all-sovereign), the creator of that person, then cause that person to be alienated from the worship?
I think he asked a good question, even though I do believe in the infallibility of the original autographs and trust that what we have today is pretty close to the originals.
Thanks for your time.
Christina
It seems he may be comparing scriptures and then asks the hard question, “How do I get around that text?”
How could God (all-sovereign), the creator of that person, then cause that person to be alienated from the worship?
How about brcause God is God and he can do whatever He wants as owner of the universe and creator of all mankind. That is the soveriegnty of God.
Just a thought…
I agree, but that is far easier for some to believe in than it is others.
Look a Sudanese girl in the eyes who has just been gang raped, mutilated, and left for dead and then looks at you and asks, “Why did this happen?” Because of God’s good pleasure? No. God hates sin. He hates evil. You cannot make it so cut and dry. What if it was your son or daughter that such evil was committed against?
This argument and your cut and dry answer becomes personal to me here. I am not offended (that would be silly) but your lack of gentleness grates against my heart. What if you were me? I am glad that I wrestle with the soveriegnty of God, it keeps me from giving easy pat answers that cannot satisfy. I can then walk with them along their journey to “Man meant it for evil but God meant it for Good.” and then we can rest in the good providence of God. But I will not harshly plaster a bandaid on their gushing wound. Our Father teaches us ever so gently, should we not do the same?
And please, see that I was agreeing with the Sovereignty of God, I was not attacking it. I was simply empathizeing with those who ask questions- Good questions, questions that I myself ask.
Christina,
I agree with your take on God’s Sovereignty. There is much mystery in it that we will surely not understand this side of eternity. I also agree that we must approach those enduring tragedy with this truth very cautiously and sensitively.
However, I don’t think this kind of mystery/uncertainty is what Bell is speaking of in the brief quote above. Bell is a postmodern emergent (I would distinguish him from more solid folks in that stream like Mark Driscoll) who doesn’t like certainty, period. People like Bell remind me of a G.K. Chesterton quote:
“What we suffer from… is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction.”
Emergents like Bell (the relativist/postmodern strain) don’t think we should be certain about much of anything. As Mrs. Bell says, the Bible is not a result of “divine fiat” but a “human product” (denying biblical inerrancy), and she has “no idea what most of it means”.
God Bless
Christina,
I apologize.
I did not make the point I really meant. Your are totally right about “how does one rectify what has happen to them by the “evilness of man” not God, but still get that person who has been hurt in a devastated manner to not blame God but imbrace His love for them and who wants to heal them and set them free.
My own wife has had to go through much to get to the place of not blaming God for things that happened to her as a child.
So I apologize for the directness and insensitivity of that statement without further comment.
I appriciate that :) I was not angry, just a little passionate, as a Biblical counseling major, I have saw alot, and experienced many different styles of counselors, I’m sorry for taking out my frustration on your comment.
Not a problem, helped keep me in line. My daughter graduated with a BS in Christian Counseling and I am sure she would have said the same thing to me and I AM SURE my wife would have. Yike, I could have been in real hot water…..
Blessings
Iwant
Jim B.
YWAM is a very influential organization, and diverse. There is not actually a large degree of central control. There focus on missions is laudable and millions have come to know Christ through this movement.
Why are most of your blogs critical of others? Just asking.
Point number one I found interesting. Do you personally know any Muslims who have converted to Christianity? Have you read the Koran? Do you know that there are many references to Jesus in the Koran that speak to his divinity as the Son of God?
I’m not denying that Islam is deception, especially in a number of contemporary manifestations, but when you speak of it being irredeemable… I think practically, that has not been borne out. There are many cultural practices associated with Islam that are fully redeemable, to the extent that it may indeed be possible to be in a relationship with God through belief in Jesus and remain within a Muslim context. This is primarily because of how the Muslim faith arose, within a Judeo-Christian context.
I’m not discounting the persecution that comes with taking a stand for Christ. There is a crunch time when one may have to leave one’s family and culture for the sake of being a follower of Jesus. Many Muslims who convert have paid this price - and others have been martyred. But there is every possibility that we will see mosques becoming churches as we trust God for a harvest of souls in the Islamic world. Islam worldwide is not uniform, and we will see whole Islamic nations turn to Christ. That is part of the missionary experience, since the time of Stephen and the Ethiopian envoy.
I believe there is wisdom in John Travis appraoch. I’m not going to be an armchair critic. If I was more active as a missionary in the Islamic world, perhaps through experience I would have reason to disagree, and then I would have to prayerfully consider if publicly disagreeing with him was the right issue to focus on.
As it is, my wife has had a focus on reaching muslims in Norhthern Nigeria for some time, and encouraging the small Christian communities that exist there on the fringes of the culture. I am currently reading an excellent book on “Sharing Your Faith With A Muslim” by Abdiyah Akbar Abdul-Haqq. If you are genuinely interested you should check it out.
Mission work has moved beyond changing people’s externals (dress, language, music and arts, food, housing styles, etc. etc.) as missionaries endeavoured of old. The focus is now quite rightly on Jesus Christ and His Lordship. YWAM exemplifies this change. I believe if you look for some of the positive aspects and not only concentrate on the things you disagree with, you will come to have respect for YWAM and the work they do.
Love from Daniel
Daniel,
Thanks for your comments and interest in this blog.
I explicitly conceded this in the post. However, I do not believe the beliefs of an organization’s leadership have no effect on its members. In fact, I know people who have been exposed to some of the listed errors directly through YWAM.
Then why don’t Muslims accept Christ as the Son of God? I’m not going to pretend to be an expert in this area, because I’m not. However, I’ve encountered enough Muslim apologetics to know that Muslims don’t understand these texts the way Christians might like them to. Muslims do not believe Christ is God.
Really? Where has Islam been “redeemable”? What would that even mean? With all due respect, I think your attitude here regarding a religion that has delivered billions of souls to hell makes my point regarding radical contextualization.
Why didn’t Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego bow to Nebuchadnezzar? Don’t you think there were some elements of Nebu-worship that were “redeemable”?
I agree a Christian missionary’s goal is not to “transform culture”, but to bring souls to Christ. However, Islam is more than neutral culture.
Finally, as I mentioned in the post, I don’t believe YWAM is evil or so plagued with heresy that the Lord cannot use it. I simply cannot personally support a ministry that embraces and condones so much error. Especially with so many other solid ministries working the harvest.
God Bless
Hi Jim
Some aspects of Muslim culture that can be redeemed when a Muslim person comes to Christ:
Their prayer life. Muslims have a very disciplined prayer life.
Their love and reverence for the revealed word of God.
Their loyalty in friendship, and their generosity of spirit towards spiritual leadership.
Their family values.
Their honesty and integrity.
Their value for fasting and spiritual discipline (goes with prayer above).
Their heart for the poor and unfortunate.
Their zeal and boldness in evangelism.
Their anti-egalitarianism (that’s a joke).
Their understanding of spiritual warfare (I’m half serious).
BTW I agree that those verses in the Koran that hint at the truth about Jesus seem to be explained away by the majority of Muslims. But it is sometimes a good way to witness. i.e. to start with the Koran and move to the Bible. The book I recommended outlines this approach.
Love in Christ
Daniel
Apology - It was meant to be “Phillip and the Ethiopian envoy”, not Stephen as stated in my first post.
Jim, what do you think of this encounter (Acts 8:26-40). Do you know that the Ethiopian Orthodox Church dates from this conversion of the royal treasurer?
Do you not think their is some validity in focussing mission work on people with authority in their communities? Most people are followers. In many missionaries experience, once a person is led to Christ, their “whole household will be saved”.
This may not apply to individualistic American society today, but many places aroound the world still have strong cultures of communal conformity and leadership.
Love from Daniel
Wow, long time since you posted this but I was doing some unrelated research and found this article. I’m a long-time SBCer who had YWAM recommended to me by a Trustee of the IMB. To speak in the language that I see here, one could call me fairly reformed, but I also have been called post-modern because I have definitely accepted that God is unsearchable and there are many things about how He works that are beyond my, and even our collective, ken. As a result, I may hold to certain beliefs about God, but it doesn’t disturb me too much if people hold to a different belief so long as they are basing it on their biblical understanding and not just on a feeling or an experience.
I am now in YWAM. There are many things taught by individuals in YWAM but they aren’t YWAM teachings. The official teaching of YWAM is that it is biblically based and that the bible is foundational, God inspired, and authoritative. At the same time it is strongly committed to interdenominational ministry and therefore has a very limited set of essential values and beliefs. They are solid in their essentials and gracious toward other things like differing views of the sovereignty of God, spiritual gifts, and the like.
The posted Statement of Faith is:
Youth With A Mission (YWAM) is an international movement of Christians from many denominations dedicated to presenting Jesus personally to this generation, to mobilizing as many as possible to help in this task, and to the training and equipping of believers for their part in fulfilling the Great Commission. As citizens of God’s kingdom, we are called to love, worship, and obey our Lord, to love and serve His Body, the Church, and to present the whole gospel for the whole person throughout the whole world.
We of Youth With A Mission believe that the Bible is God’s inspired and authoritative word, revealing that Jesus Christ is God’s son; that people are created in God’s image; that He created us to have eternal life through Jesus Christ; that although all people have sinned and come short of God’s glory, God has made salvation possible through the death on the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ; that repentance, faith, love and obedience are fitting responses to God’s initiative of grace towards us; that God desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth; and that the Holy Spirit’s power is demonstrated in and through us for the accomplishment of Christ’s last commandment, “…Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature”
One cannot argue with the fruit that has been shown through this organization and we know that good fruit doesn’t come from a bad tree.
Brian,
Thanks for commenting!
OK. But certainly that which is revealed of God, by God, through His Word is knowable, right?
I accept this to a point, but I don’t see how this gets the ministry off the hook for teaching false doctrine (to the extent that various YWAMers are guilty of this). I recognize that the various bases and DTS centers have varying teachers and teachings. Frankly, I think this is a problem. In the “unity or doctrine” divide, YWAM very clearly sides with unity over sound doctrine. I think the goal should be unity founded on sound doctrine.
Also, I don’t believe YWAM leaders avoid promoting particular teachings/doctrines. Just look at the book recommendations. Interestingly, the section of YWAM’s Statement of Faith dealing with the Doctrine of Justification (”God has made salvation possible through the death on the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ”) is undermined by the teachings of one of YWAM’s most recommended authors, N.T. Wright. (Though, to be fair, YWAM’s statement here is pretty vague.)
I don’t believe for a moment that the doctrines promoted by the highest members of YWAM leadership have no impact on the average YWAMer. I think this is, on its face, unreasonable to believe. This is not to say that every YWAMer believes everything Loren Cunningham or Lynn Green believe, but certainly these beliefs are very influential within the ministry.
For example, YWAM is indisputably charismatic. I personally know of someone who went to a DTS and came back saying very dominionist/charismatic stuff – stuff they never would have encountered prior to attending this DTS. YWAM’s associations with men like Benny Hinn and ministries like IHOP are pretty clear indicators of YWAM’s charismatic bent.
I’m not sure I follow that logic. Do you think any good fruit came out of Jim Bakker’s ministry at the height of its corruption? I don’t doubt there was. Yet, I don’t think we would have called Bakker or his ministry a “good tree”. I don’t mean to say that I think YWAM is a “bad tree”, I just don’t believe you can give them (or any other ministry) a pass on teaching and condoning really bad doctrine, because we can point to some “good fruit”.
Having said all that, I pray God’s blessings on you and your ministry with YWAM. I personally could not minister with the organization, but I don’t doubt that God can and will use you through them to advance His Kingdom.
God Bless
Thank you for your gracious response, Jim. I have a few thoughts.
I suppose part of the reason why I put forth what i’ve said is because I’ve sat under two people who taught open theism. They didn’t do it in the way one imagines, sitting on the outside. They didn’t set forth an outline, proclaim that they aer going to teach about how God’s sovereighty works, call it open theism, and build a case for it. they simply included, in their presentation on the nature of God, a discussion of what they believed God knows, etc. One of them did little more than raise questions about traditional understanding by pointing to verses of scripture that raise those questions.
They based their understanding on the bible. They all point to the bible, never basing it on experience. They do, I think, often overanalyze both the scripture and the fear that people will blame God for things, but they present what they believe is a biblical understanding of God’s working. At the same time, they don’t do so dogmatically and they allow questions and discussion. Moreover, and most significantly, as they talk about God and the bible, you realize that regardless of their simplistic presentation of this idea that perhaps God doesn’t know exactly what man will choose (based on things like the Genesis 22 passage), they completely believe in an omnipotent and omniscient God. They acknowledge that God is God and we are not. They are trying to be true to the scripture. And they have been an instrument in God’s hands to doing God’s work all over the world.
You ask me about what has been revealed. Clearly, what has been revealed is knowable. But it is only knowable to the extent it has been revealed and to the extent that it has been revealed in a way that our finite minds can understand. I have found that most of the disputes in Christendom are based on legitimate biblical understandings. It seems there are always a few verses that cause questions to a particular theory. If one holds to a certain theory these troubling verses become not normative or out of context or whatever, but I’m not sure that such statements are just man’s reasoning. It seems we “hermeneutic” ourselves subjectively to aid our arguments and we neglect the Holy Spirit.
My biggest question of you is how you define doctrine? I also have to ask where you place unity in Jesus on your scale of import?
doc·trine
–noun
1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
That works for me. Christian Doctrine: the collective teachings of the Christian faith. As a Protestant, I believe the Bible is the only source of authoritative Christian doctrine (sola scriptura).
If most disputes are founded on “legitimate biblical understandings”, then God’s Word is incoherent. I don’t believe God has revealed anything to us in His Word that He does not intend for us to understand. In fact, where God intends to leave mystery, He typically tells us (e.g. Job, Romans 9).
I don’t mean to say that parts of God’s Word are not difficult to understand, but that none of its parts are beyond understanding. E.g. That God exhaustively knows the future is made plain in Scripture. I think any approach to Scripture that reads texts like Genesis 22 against the plethora of texts explicitly ascribing exhaustive foreknowledge to God belies a faulty hermeneutic that does not sufficiently appreciate the perfection and coherence of God’s Word.
Regarding unity: I believe Christ wants His people to be unified. I also believe He wants His people to love each other perfectly, to not gossip or backbite, to be perfectly hospitable, etc. I also believe He wants His people to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. I don’t see Scripture anywhere elevating unity above truth. I believe we should be unified and at peace wherever possible, but not at the expense of truth.
God Bless
“I think any approach to Scripture that reads texts like Genesis 22 against the plethora of texts explicitly ascribing exhaustive foreknowledge to God belies a faulty hermeneutic that does not sufficiently appreciate the perfection and coherence of God’s Word.”
I agree, but I also know some who disagree and who are godly men, bearing the fruits of the Spirit. I dont’ understand it, but I don’t have to. And I’m not going to separate from people like that. Especially when this an area where I do not believe God has revealed Himself clearly at all.
Do you include Revelation in your mysteries?
Unity over truth. I’ve heard this argument before, even from my own lips in the past. Is it possible that Christ going up on the cross was unity over truth? Is unity Truth? What about unity in Christ isn’t truth?
The Greek word for doctrine means teaching. How did Jesus teach? What was Jesus’ doctrine with His disciples?
Brian,
I want to say this with no malice or ill will: I have no idea what you are talking about.
What are you talking about? How is “Christ going up on the cross… unity over truth”? What does that even mean? If Christ is the Word (Truth) and the Word is Christ’s teaching/doctrine, then how does one unite in Christ without uniting on the foundation of His Truth?
How can you agree with me and yet “not believe God has revealed Himself clearly at all”? Again, Brian, I mean no disrespect, but you’re becoming increasingly incoherent as this conversation progresses.
And I’m not sure what you’re driving at by asking, “How did Jesus teach?” Are you trying to say that Christ was a “uniter, not a divider”? What about the moneychangers in the Temple? Or all the talk of weeping and gnashing of teeth? Or bringing a sword of division, rendering fathers from sons?
We call that the Gospels. Are you asking me to distill Christ’s teaching into one fluffy, inoffensive, summary?
I guess I’m a little lost.
I know some really “godly” Hindus and Mormons. Are you ready to embrace them too?
I don’t know godly Hindus and Mormons who proclaim Jesus, God, the Son, is Lord.
I apologize if it is incomprehensible - blog comments are a bit that way because one can only expound so much. I will try to connect some dots. thank you for asking and continuing the dialogue in spite of the fact you must think I’m crazy or a heretic or something.
Did Jesus deserve to die? No.
He chose to die. He chose to be wrong, so that we could be made righteous - so that we could be reconciled. Jesus, the Truth, chose to be Sin. At the Cross amazing things happened. I don’t fully understand all the exchanges that took place there or the dualisms that are made known there. But, that is why I was asking the question as to whether He, in a sense, could be said to have lain down truth to make it possible for their to be unity in Him. It wasn’t meant to be a proclamation of some new idea - it was a question. Look at some of the questions asked by the disciples - sometimes they seemed a bit dimwitted. :)
And, no, I wasn’t talking about Christ being a uniter versus being a divider. I’m familiar with those scriptures. What I meant was, what did He teach and how did He teach?
Again, this is a blog comment, but I will attempt to summarize what I’m thinking of…
He taught by living with them. He taught by showing them his dependence on the Father even in how He ate dinner, washed, walked, talked, debated, everything.
He taught less by academic types of means than He did by living with them and releasing them to more and more ministry.
He taught them things like love one another, give, take care of the poor and needy, the importance of prayer and how to pray, you are blessed to be a blessing to the nations, there is a very real enemy, the devil, you can’t serve God and Mammon, living for me means dying to yourself, etc. You don’t see Jesus spending time teaching anything that resembles classes one might take today on soteriology, eschatology, or the like. He didn’t really often go into great details about such things; instead he dealt with attitudes of the heart and good works that flow out of having a right heart.
I think we often let our Modern and Western way of thinking (Rationalism) get in the way of what Jesus taught and we don’t even realize it. Traveling cross-culturally has only made that more evident to me. Perhaps I take that too far and have developed “incomprehensibility” - smile.
Did this make anything clearer? The reason I ask about what doctrine and teaching is is because I do agree with you about the import of doctrine, but I see doctrine being discussed in the epistles and it is more often in the context of good character and good works than it is in the context of an academic theology. I agree with you that God reveals Himself, but we still can’t understand everything because we see now in part. That doesn’t let us off the hook to getting to know Him better, but I think it is about knowing Him intimately and personally (ginosko) more so than knowing about Him.
Also, back in context, you said emphatically that unity never triumphs truth, and I said that about the Cross to suggest that there may have been instances where it does. But I would add to that Romans 14, where one can eat veggies and one can eat idol sacrificed meat and both be right and both submit to one another to reflect God’s glory.
When i asked about whether unity is truth I was referring to you separating the two, as though they can be seen apart frmo one another. It’s like asking the question can faith and works be separated? Can grace and truth? Can loving God and loving others? Can justice and mercy?
When you read the bible on the macro level you see a theme of relationship throughout. God is a God of relationship. From the beginning as Elohim to the end. He creates relationship and desires that we not live separate and apart. Unity in Him seems to be what it is all about. That is truth. It’s amazing to the unreconciled that two people who have different skins, cultures, and even understandings of God can come together and say Jesus is Lord. That draws men to Him.
Jim B.,
Did you know the IMB and Campus Crusade and Wycliffe and others partner with YWAM?
Maybe not Hindus, but I’ve encountered plenty of Mormons who proclaim exactly this. If Scripture is so unclear about these pesky doctrinal issues, how would you evangelize a Mormon? Would you?
No, but I think you might be a Christian Relativist.
I don’t understand why the Cross is so ambiguous to you. The New Testament spells out pretty clearly what Christ accomplished at Calvary, why and how. What, exactly, don’t you understand?
Yes, unity in truth. This Truth has specific content. It is not a nebulous, undefined, spiritual force.
Ex-squeeze-me? I have no idea what that means.
Really? The first four books of my Bible contain an awful lot of red letters. It seems you want to get away from Christ’s (and Paul’s, Peter’s, John’s, etc.) explicit, didactic teachings, and move toward His example, in order to justify your doctrinal relativism. Yes, Christ taught through his life, but He also taught (a lot) by speaking and teaching (“academic types”). It is dangerous to elevate the former over the latter, particularly since God has clearly ordained that His people know Him via “academic types” (i.e. the written word).
First, I don’t accept the above comment as true. Second, and more importantly, I reject the implied notion that Scripture’s red letters carry more weight than the others. Most of Paul’s writings deal with these icky topics.
This is (forgive me) incomprehensible. How do you know someone “intimately and personally” without knowing about that someone? If I told you I loved my wife (I do) and you responded by asking me about her, would you not expect me to know a great deal about her? In fact, wouldn’t you expect me to know her better than I know any other person?
Unfortunately, I think the above comment typifies American Christianity. We have distilled our faith to a vacuous emoting. There are no genuine religious affections without genuine knowledge. Scripture doesn’t emphasize one or the other, but both (kinda like unity and truth, eh?).
How does the Cross function to elevate unity over truth?
And I don’t see how Romans 14 works to support your claim either. Paul is speaking to issues of conscience, not condoning sin. Do you believe it is a sin to eat meat or esteem certain days over others, but Paul is elevating the principle of unity over truth by condoning both? This is nonsense!
Romans 14:14 – I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.
Meat is not unclean, but if you have a brother who was just saved out of a paganism that sacrificed animals, he may believe (rightly or wrongly) it sinful to eat this meat. Paul’s point is not to say that eating meat is intrinsically sinful for this weaker brother, but that it would be sin for the brother to engage in an intrinsically neutral behavior that his regenerated conscience felt was sinful.
The “truth” of this scripture is that, for the sake of unity, Christians should be gracious to one another in regards to matters of conscience. How/why would you apply this to matters of doctrine (i.e. Biblical Truth)?
So, unity and truth are one and the same? Why do you separate from Mormons? They claim to be Christians. Why do you judgmentally quibble with them? If unity is the same as truth, and is paramount, how can you separate from anyone who claims to worship Christ?
Hmm… I don’t know why, but I keep running into this idea with many modern aberrant teachings of late: Open Theism, New Perspective on Paul, Bridal Paradigm, etc. I wonder why that is? (Seriously, I really don’t know.)
The idea seems to imply that God needs us for Him to be relational. Yet, an orthodox understanding of the Trinity recognizes that God has relationship within Himself – He lacks nothing.
I don’t mean to say that God is not relational. I just don’t get the emphasis – I don’t see it in Scripture.
Yes, I did.
God Bless
The cross was not a question. It was a statement which showed exactly what it takes for a perfect and holy God to accept you and I. It is a statement of what payment is needed…which we can’t make.
What question is it asking, pray tell?
Just an observation….but you sound like you’re really into Rob Bell and Brian MacLaren….it’s almost as if you just got done reading “Velvit Elvis” and have some urge to go save us dumb @$$ evangelicals from being so….evangelical, like as if people really are sinners needing to repent….as if the have to call on the name of the Lord to be saved; as if they have to believe to call; as if they have to hear (understand) to call; as if they have to be preached to in order to hear (understand); as if one must be sent to preach.
Preach what?
Jesus sends His disciples out and tells them (mt. 10:7), “GO, PREACH….”
Uh, why not just tell them, “go, be relational. Build friendships and earn trust. Take your acoustic guitar with you bro and that new Enter The Worship Circle CD…be relevant.”
I was tempted to quote Jesus as saying, “Be excellent to each other; and party on dudes!”
I hear the voice of Art Katz in my head saying, “schmalty, saccharine sentiment; sound and fury signifying nothing”. At the end of the day, you’ve not moved anyone to anything except that you’re real nice, maybe a little effeminate, you dig good coffee and love Radiohead and have a reall cool shaggy hairdoo with a full beard…and Birkenstocks….
Okay, maybe not. My point is that the only impression you leave behind is this:
http://defendingcontending.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/a-scathing-blow-to-the-wishy-washy-emergent-church-and-sugary-ear-candy-preaching-so-popular-today/#comments
This old man represents the world, sorta….an awakened world needing a real gospel, but getting only the crap you’re dealing out. Yes, it’s crap…and yes I’m something of a jerk at times. Sorry. But’s it’s “really poopy”, if that’s nicer.
Your gospel has no bite, no teeth. Your sword has no edge….in fact, from the way you sound, your sword is more like this thing that hung in my gramma’s hallway. It said, “Grammas Paddle” and it was just a flat stick with a heart shaped pillow on it.
The world doesn’t need the gospel of Mr. Garrison and Mr. Hat.
mark jr.
I never said the cross was a question. The “it” was talking about my original statement. My statement was posed as a question, to be explored. I am sorry I had a vague pronoun out there.
Jim, I don’t know how to respond because it is apparent that your judgment that I am a christian relativist (which i dont’ even know what that means) has colored how you read every one of my words. My point about the cross was that all is made clear by the cross. All the pardoxes of God are suddenly revealed there. The error in labelign someone is that you see everything they say and do through the prism of what you understand about the label, not the person or what they say or do.
My point about jesus wasn’t that he didn’t teacch a lot - he did. It was about how He taught and what He taught. I’ve read those words time and time again.
I’m sorry I am not doing well at expressing myself. I hate litmus tests but I feel like I need to list all of what I believe to get you past some assumptions that you are making. But I think it is the necessity of such things for many people that greatly harms the good news of the cross. The gospel. The Truth. Because God is my True Defender, I’m going to try not to react and believe the lie that I need to defend myself.
Jesus is Lord. I follow Him. He told us to preach the gospel of the Kingdom. Paul preached the cross and Jesus crucified. I do as well. There is a spiritual war afoot and we better be about fighting it - spritually, not in the flesh.
Brian,
Here’s your quote in the original context:
I guess I’m still confused as to what you were/are trying to say here.
By referring to you as a “Christian Relativist” I meant to say (1) that I believe you are a Christian and (2) that your arguments here (and at your blog) have been very relativistic (e.g. “there’s no way to really know”, “it’s a mystery”, “but they’re really godly people”, etc.). We all label people and draw conclusions about them. This is how the human mind works. A reasonable person is willing to make adjustments to these labels and conclusions with new information or a better understanding of old information. I don’t believe for a moment that you haven’t drawn certain conclusions and attached certain labels to me in your mind. I’m fine with that. The trick is not to stop making conclusions and attaching labels, but to be open and honest about the conclusions and labels; and to be open and charitable enough to adjust them if necessary.
If you think I’m wrong on the second account above (that you’re arguments here have been exceedingly relativistic), please defend yourself. Oh, wait, you’re “going to try not to react and believe the lie that I need to defend myself.” It seems you’ve hedged yourself in from having to defend anything you say, because anyone who questions or challenges you is just “fighting in the flesh”.
I Peter 3:15 - …but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect…
I have tried to do exactly this here. If I have done so without gentleness and respect, please tell me how and where. I sincerely mean to communicate these things in a winsome and persuasive manner.
I would ask you again: How would you witness to a Mormon without using some kind of “litmus test” and discussing relatively fine points of doctrine? Or would you witness to a Mormon at all?
God Bless
Jim, again, I’m sorry it’s confusing. Unlike you, I can’t block quote and cut and paste within your blog and make it more clear other than to say this goes back to the beginning paragraphs of your comment at 8:44 p.m. on April 30th. Hopefully that will give you the context. You block quoted some questions of mine and I am responding to that in the paragraph that you mistakenly thought I was refering to the cross as a question. I was just referring to my question that you wanted to understand (and you said you didn’t intend malice, etc.)
Yes, I would witness to a Mormon (we’ve come a long way from YWAM). I would introduce them to Jesus. The Jesus that the bible introduces us to.
Brian,
I’ll let the Cross question drop, because I think it’s confusing the both of us.
Mormons already believe in Jesus and they accept our Bible:
http://ongofublog.com/2008/04/29/what-do-mormons-really-believe/
How would you proceed from a general introduction of Christ?
What do you mean by that? You’re not saying YWAM doesn’t proselytize Mormons, are you? I always assumed even YWAM considered LDS outside the Christian Faith.
God Bless
I am completely awful at communicating. I wrote too quickly and totally off the top of my brain sometimes. I apologize.
I meant that the subject of our comments have come a long way from the context of your post. It had nothing to do with YWAM and Mormons together. That is why I said what I said.
I think this is a dead horse. :)
Brian,
Thanks for clarifying the last YWAM/Mormon comment. I didn’t think YWAM was that open.
Dead Horse or not, the reason I push the Mormon question is because I believe it drives at the heart of the problem with a postmodern/relativistic/unity-at-all-costs approach to the Christian Faith. If you’ve ever discussed religion/theology with a Mormon, you will quickly find yourself debating relatively fine points of doctrine; the kind of thing you seem to have eschewed in our conversation. Mormons will affirm virtually every major Christian doctrine.
I guess my point is that your shoulder-shrugging attitude toward doctrine must have its limits. You must draw the line somewhere. I’m trying to figure out where you draw that line, and why. It might illuminate the conversation.
But, if we’re done, then we’re done. It was a pleasure.
God Bless
I don’t shrug shoulders at doctrine. Doctrine is key. But I still think it is important how we define doctrine.
For a small part of what I’m driving at check out my post on October 22nd of 2007. Or type doctrine saves into my search place on my blog. Perhaps, if you want to, we can take up conversation there.
I’m interested because when I wrote that I was more thinking out loud than preaching.