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.

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 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.

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?

(we’ve come a long way from YWAM)

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

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.

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.

Here’s your quote in the original context:

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.

I guess I’m still confused as to what you were/are trying to say here.

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.

…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.

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, 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.

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 don’t know godly Hindus and Mormons who proclaim Jesus, God, the Son, is Lord.

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?

…you must think I’m crazy or a heretic or something.

No, but I think you might be a Christian Relativist.

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.

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?

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.

Yes, unity in truth. This Truth has specific content. It is not a nebulous, undefined, spiritual force.

It [the Cross?] wasn’t meant to be a proclamation of some new idea - it was a question.

Ex-squeeze-me? I have no idea what that means.

He taught less by academic types of means than He did by living with them and releasing them to more and more ministry.

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).

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…

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.

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.

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?).

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.

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)?

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.

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?

When you read the bible on the macro level you see a theme of relationship throughout. God is a God of relationship.

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.

Did you know the IMB and Campus Crusade and Wycliffe and others partner with YWAM?

Yes, I did.

God Bless