20050623

christian's who hate?

i am amazed at how some who claim to be christian use hatred, spite and back biting as signs of the faith. people who, instead of having an open and honest debate desire to insult, shout and belittle those who think different. i find it interesting that some shout that any honest and authentic disagreement is a automatic "us" vs. "them" tag. it is hard to mention the anger they have for the emerging/postmodern without being tagged as a person wanting to fight. while it is frustrating, more so then that - it is so not christian. paul, in ephesians 4:30-32, writes the following, "and do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you." while i think many in the emerging are striving hard to keep that scripture to heart, i find that many of those who speak against us do not.

with all this "attacking" from the "emergent no" group it seems hard to think that other "christians" would speak so cruelly to another christian. recently i was asked by a friend to read some of the stuff and share with him what i thought. now, i am not big on reading blogs that are so hurtful and anti-anything, but he was a good friend and he did ask - so i went, and what i found was amazing, and very hurtful.

there was one person [a seemingly a lone voice] called "marc" [i started to read his blog as well, a very cool guy] - is being attacked, not on substance mind you, but on a personal level. now, i am certain marc is a "big boy" and can stand up for himself - as he does, in a very cool and positive way. but what gets me is that i have seen this kind of "debating" before.

the idea is to mix personal attacks and disagreeing on the point, to create some twisted logic that escapes me at all levels. i think they do this as to make it look like they actually have approached the topic. then, when you mention that it's wrong for the personal attacks and you desire to remain on task, they are quick to deny the attacks and place it back on you by saying "why not just answer the questions" - even thought they never asked a question to start with. i have seen this before - been in this before - and it is always evident by the fact that the "discussion" quickly goes off topic.

what i find most interesting is that the "discussion" in the article, and on the discussion of brain's theology, is that it soon turned to personal attacks on brian, and those who support him and even on the twisting of brian's words - and the words of others. they read what they desire; retain only what they wish, and in that selective reading they attack with they think it says, but not what it says. they seem to be arguing themselves, and when you bring that point to their attention, they still demand on arguing their point. for example, one person Sven [another great blog] writes, "I think (from what I've read of Mclaren) the point he's making is that people can convert to Christ without converting cultures. For example, a Saudi Arabian could convert to Christ but could still dress the same, eat the same, speak the same language, like the same art and music, and so on." to which others were quick to rip apart. and as one other calm voice [rick - and yup, love his blog too] supports, he is 100% right.

but i think the heart of the "emergent no" group can be summed up in this statement by "surphing" one of the "voices of the emergent no" group, "Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy are false religions, but this is the whole idea of Emergent--to be all-inclusive (well except for what they deem as too 'colonialistic' or stringent). This is ecumenicism at its best. And this is hardly evangelical. Time Magazine clearly is ignorant of what historically "Evangelicalism" is. Then again, what most call "Christianity" these days is not biblical at all."

well, she is right on one point, "Then again, what most call "Christianity" these days is not biblical at all." so true, and they are called "emergent no."

4 comments:

Jesse J. Anderson said...

I don't really know a whole lot about you or this "emergent no" but you ruin your entire post with your last statement.

Your first statement:
i am amazed at how some who claim to be christian use hatred, spite and back biting as signs of the faith. people who, instead of having an open and honest debate desire to insult, shout and belittle those who think different.

Your last statement:
well, she is right on one point, "Then again, what most call "Christianity" these days is not biblical at all." so true, and they are called "emergent no."

Sounds like a spiteful and back-biting response to me.

john o'keefe said...

jesse,

and that it may be - so please for give me if it is. my desire was to simply take their words and show them how it feels -

Paul said...

I agree with the sentiment that you express here. When it comes to how to handle disagreements the example of Priscilla and Aquilla is a good one to follow. They took Apollos aside and spoke to him personally, affirming what he was doing right and explaining the way of Jesus more fully to him. They realized that Apollos was on their side, he just needed some further instruction. Sometimes we forget that we are on the sameside, and so we attack each other rather than seeking to help each other understand their positions. It is very important that we don't turn debates and disagreements into us verses them because that only hinders the cause we are called to carry out.

john o'keefe said...

paul, good point - thanks for adding to the conversation :)