对话 发表评论

回复 标记 0 支持 反对 Church_Site_Host (0)
美国

As a field missionary for 20 years, and a missions pastor for 5 years in the US, I’d like to give a a response to your note.  While your tone is negative to these concepts, I chose to accept your intent as good, and hopefully desire to stay close to Jesus and His Great Commission.

Let me say that, speaking from a field missionary point of view, most of these themes spring from different sources than you attribute them (or at least do so for many of those attending.)  Many topics are born from the deep realities of cross cultural living and service: 4 billion people in the world are not comfortable learning from books, they are illiterate or newly literate or literate in a language not their mother tongue or just not book lovers.  So of course orality is a crucial issue, of course spoken conversations over tea (or by cell phone) are absolutely necessary for the Great Commission to go forward.  Table fellowship, spirit led speaking to one another, confession of sin: these are daily conversations, as are many of Paul’s discussions in his letters. 

There are 10 times as many pastors who are women in China, and a large number for the same reason in Iran:  many husbands have been martyred or imprisoned.  Also many women are not employed in a formal job that ties them down all week long.  Whatever your position on women in leadership in the church, about 2/3 of the church worldwide is women and children and women’s issues, proper treatment of women, and healing of the abused is a missions priority.

Having studied three years in an Asian Seminary in an Asian language with students from over 20 ethnic groups, I can say that diversity is not politically correct buzz word in missions, it is about “every tongue, tribe and nation” following Jesus. He is the head over all of us, we are worse than fools not to listen to the healthy brothers from around the world who understand God’s work in poverty, pain, spiritual warfare and community living much better than most westerners.   This is diversity and plural voices unfolding their relationships with Jesus, not pluralism.  And it is tremendously healthy, especially around tables of 6-8 at the conference.

That there is some post-modern influence in the tone of ALL global conversation these days is beyond a doubt; and Pluralism as an –ism is a real threat.  However, the entire opening day was an affirmation of knowable, actionable truth based in accurate revelation by God and the historic personal revelation in Jesus; we should therefore be hesitant to presume some fuzzy neo-liberalism as a hidden agenda when the formal session content is firmly evangelical and evangelistic in nature.   Speaking as a missions pastor in California, the truth is still the truth, and the truth bearers are becoming a bit more humble about how much they know. But our 2/3 world brothers are showings us that obedience to what we know is a good deal more important than knowing 2% more or acting 20% more humble. 

I trust these real world issues are the inspiration for most of the issues you mention, and hope these ideas help you enjoy the conference videos and materials with a different perspective.

27.10.2010

回复 标记 0 支持 反对 jchrysostom2010 (1)
美国

Hello Dr. H,

N.T. Wright is on my "to read" list. Which of his works are you referring to? Having not read much of Wright yet I already have a respect for him, but with all due respect for both you and him, I’m sure I will learn much from reading him, but i will come away with the same general conclusion as i do when i read anyone, and that is that no one corner’s the market on the truth, and Biblical truth always trumps anyone else’s truth. I haven’t yet read anything in God’s word that leads me to think that WE can hasten or slow down the earth’s ultimate demise. We can however cause more or less misery on the earth for as long as we have it to care for, which is what I think (until NTW changes my mind ;) stewardship of the earth is as it was given to Adam and Eve. And I don’t want to come off as completely uncaring about non-human creatures. I hate whaling -- whale oil was a necessary fuel at one time but now it’s an unnecessary waste. Likewise, i wouldn’t be so opposed to sharkfin soup if it wasn’t for the fact that only the fin is harvested and the rest of the shark thrown overboard -- what a waste! How many people could be fed with the fish being thrown away? To sum: creation care is necessary as long as the priority is on how it impacts the creatures who are stamped with God’s image, and I still say the ultimate fate of the earth is in God’s hands, but we should strive to make it better while we still have it.

15.10.2010

回复 标记 0 支持 反对 nicpaton (2)
南非
@ jchrysostom2010:

jc

I think I understand the "stewardship" angle you espouse, and it’s far better than the gospel of evacuation / left behind attitude to a fallen world.

But I’d go one further and say that what we need is a sacramental view of life and a sacramental view of the created order and our place in it.

This tradition has deep roots; but is viewed with suspicion by the evangelical worldview which deems it "pantheistic". In my considered opinion, it is not that, and is in fact a biblical imperative.

16.10.2010

回复 标记 0 支持 反对 johnfranklin (1)  
加拿大

Nic your response leaves open the question of whether you think the adoption of the various elements you listed - that now are showing up in the Lausanne conversation and "infiltrating" or now being accepted into the evangelical mainstream is a good thing or a bad thing or just a neutral matter. I took it that you were concerned about this shift and so wished to suggest that it is not necessarily entirely negative. 

As for subversive - I agree that the gospel is subversive - and poses a challenge to and ultimate defeat of - the pretenders to power.

jc2010 comments that he prefers the less firey language of Nic - so I take it jc that you believe that Nic is holding a view like those who spew the vitriol - but do so in a more gracious and generous way - and your position would be similiar and your style more like that of Nic.  As may be evident here I am trying to smoke out a position here - to get clear what view you are advocating or at least exploring,

Two questions to jc - one am I right to see that your concern for the environment is dependent on how it affects human beings - eg Beijing - and not a concern for the environment itself - that whole creation that is groaning and travailing waiting for the day of redemption?  The second question is this - you are right to say we who are Christians should not be taken in by "junk science" Do you have any thoughts on whether and what might be a case of "junk religion".  Does junk for you mean shoddy thinking - ungrounded assumptions or something of that sort?

John Franklin

15.10.2010

回复 标记 0 支持 反对 nicpaton (2)
南非
@ johnfranklin:

Hi John - I see that smoking gun, and I appreciate it! So it would appear, does Jesus - "seek and you shall find". The ability to engage is a cardinal virtue at this time.

I am observing from "without the camp" a family I love - the evangelical church. But I might be described as "post-evangelical" myself, on a good day. "Post" does not in my case mean anti- or ex-, but beyond-.

I have spent the last 5 years on a journey which has taken me far from the "fold", but my heart reamins for those who are in a place I know too well. The questions I am posing, I believe, must have some relevance for at least a few evangelcals, and I want to be in a place of availablity to those who honestly are asking them.

I’m not trying to be fiery, but I am passionate about this conversation, and open to all points of view, and I mean all. I don’t want to burn anyone, but rather enliven and warm.

16.10.2010

回复 标记 0 支持 反对 nicpaton (2)
南非
@ johnfranklin:

Hi John - I see that smoking gun, and I appreciate it! So it would appear, does Jesus - "seek and you shall find". The ability to engage is a cardinal virtue at this time.

I am observing from "without the camp" a family I love - the evangelical church. But I might be described as "post-evangelical" myself, on a good day. "Post" does not in my case mean anti- or ex-, but beyond-.

I have spent the last 5 years on a journey which has taken me far from the "fold", but my heart reamins for those who are in a place I know too well. The questions I am posing, I believe, must have some relevance for at least a few evangelcals, and I want to be in a place of availablity to those who honestly are asking them.

I’m not trying to be fiery, but I am passionate about this conversation, and open to all points of view, and I mean all. I don’t want to burn anyone, but rather enliven and warm.

16.10.2010

回复 标记 0 支持 反对 jchrysostom2010 (1)
美国

@ John and Nic,

Good discussion. I tend to lean toward the less fiery language of Nic. Not referring to you, Nic, but too many of our brethren are spewing such vitriol in their blogging we need to do what we can to calm waters.

But, on the topics, i’d like to just say something about creation care. i agree that the church (U.S. anyway) is WAY behind the curve (as a result of the fundamentalist/ anti-intellectual movement) when it comes to creation care. But, from those who are making the effort, I see mostly just co-opting and riding the coattails of the humanist environmentalist. The one thing, the Church should remove from it’s vocabulary is "Save the Earth". To be compatible with Biblical truth, one must know that to destroy or to save the earth is not in our pervue, but ultimately in God’s hands. Also, I think that for creation care to have a biblical world view we need to focus more on the DIRECT human toll resulting from a damged environment, i.e focus more on the people choking on smog in Beijing and less on whatever is or is not happening to the polar bear. Let’s not miss the people being hurt by a toxic landslide while we’re worrying over an endangered butterfly. One more thing, since Christians are to be utterly concerned about truth, let’s not get sucked in by junk science. It’s out there, and as Christians we should understand somethng of the human heart and know that the junk is motivated by base human inclinations.

jc2010  

15.10.2010

回复 标记 0 支持 反对 nicpaton (2)
南非
@ jchrysostom2010:

Hi jchrysostom

I tend to think that the vitriol you mention is a symptom of something, and it comes from many a quarter. Some of the most unpleasent people I have enocountered online are fundamentalist evangelicals, and one can only reach out to what I perceive to be their pain and fear at the sorts of questions that are being asked.

Regards anti-evangelical sentiment, my view is that we should try to understand the grievance, and oftentimes the hurt comes directly as a result of experiences in churches - immature leaders, co-ersion, lack of grace, inability to hold questions.

Thanks for your thoughts, and many blessings to you...

16.10.2010

回复 标记 0 支持 反对 johnfranklin (1)  
加拿大

Thanks jc - a helpful response - I knew you were affirming Nic not criticizing him and I agree with what you have said.

As for creation and its current situation - accepting what you say - that it is God who oversees and carries out what is and will happen there - the question remains as to whether and how we as God’s people are to participate in that process - though we are not ultimately in control of it.  Whether the earth or people the matter of salvation is not simply in our hands - but it does seem we have some role to play - and clarifying that is a worthwhile exercise.

Thanks again for you helpful response.

John Franklin 

15.10.2010

回复 标记 0 支持 反对 jchrysostom2010 (1)
美国

John,

 I think I’ll just assume I didn’t understand your statement about word choice. My initial comments were about choice of language and tone, which doesn’t make any judgment on the substance of an argument. And I was not directing that remark, re vitriol, at Nic and I said as much. My apologies to Nic if he thought so.  As for smoking out my position on that I’ll try to be more clear: I’ve witnessed too much blogging that is of the most un-Christ-like character, some even bragging about how many people they’ve angered or upset and see the reaction of their upset brothers as affirmation of their superior discernment . Again, let me emphasize I’m not referring to anyone posting so far on this discussion.

The two questions: (1) My concern for the environment is not solely dependent on how it affects human beings; I said that should be the priority. The priority – not the only. Your interpretation of Romans 8:22 is just one way to look at it. Verse 20 says the earth “was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it...” Some take “the one who” as God, not Adam. Not only that, the “bondage of decay”, the “groaning” and so forth is not all man-made, i.e. volcanoes, earthquakes, etc.

(2) Of course I think there is such a thing as junk religion, but I think you already knew that. So if you want examples here’s a few I put in the list: a) the so called prosperity or health and wealth gospel, b) the religion that Jesus said the religious leaders made into a heavy burden for the people, c) the religion that James speaks against in 1:19-27 (the vitriolic bloggers should pay particular attention to v.26). Not an all inclusive list, but I hope will do.

BTW – the cliché I was trying to besmirch earlier is “Save the Planet”, not Save the Earth. Romans 12:2.

15.10.2010

回复 标记 0 支持 反对 windjammer (4)
加拿大

Hi

Guess I could not disagree more with this last comment. You might need to read up on some of N T Wright’s latest work. Saving the planet is indeed our (Christianity’s) work. Stewardship of the earth was an important work given to Adam and Eve. Restoration of the earth is our mission now and it will be until Christ returns.   

15.10.2010

回复 标记 0 支持 反对 windjammer (4)
加拿大

Thanks John, and thanks Nic.

I could not agree with John more. The Postmodern culture needs to be engaged at every point. An ongoing conversation with seekers is a good place to start. What will emerge is an important dialogue.

Cheers

Bryan Hagerman (an old friend of John Franklin’s) 

15.10.2010

回复 标记 0 支持 反对 johnfranklin (1)  
加拿大

Nic:

Just a quick response - using the word "infiltrate" suggests a subversive move and the assumption that this move is problematic for evangelicalism.  It would be valuable to assess the various bits you have listed not for their presence in liberalism and/or postmodernism but for whether or not they are compatible with a biblical understanding of who we are to be as the people of God. 

Modern notions of truth are being challenged and this I think is a good thing, creation care is something Christians should have been providing leadership on long before now, women in leadership seems to follow Paul’s instruction to engage the gifts of the body of Christ and pluralism has been around a long time and fits with the kind of world the bible describes. 

John Franklin

15.10.2010

回复 标记 0 支持 反对 nicpaton (2)
南非
@ johnfranklin:

Hi John - thanks; and I agree that the aim of such an analysis is not to pidgeonhole, but to seek T/truth, and to do good hermenautics.

As for subversion, it’s an important approach to uncovering this T/truth, and I see (poetic) subversion in much of what Jesus does. It would be great if the church could appreciate the degree to which his gospel is subversive.

Above all the particualars, thank you for you caring and insight.

15.10.2010

你必须登录后才能发表评论。如果你还没有用户名，请在此注册（免费、易用！）。