Emergent Church Movement

Agreed, it is odd. I have experienced this in many of my discussions with ex-catholics. It does seem to be that many long-time ex-catholics have some of the most skewed perspectives on the Catholic church out there and for the longest time that confused me.

I have found some exceptions and most of them seem to be more recent converts from Catholicism who seem to be much more informed about current Catholic positions while still rejecting them for protestant ones.

I've come up with a few possible explanations.

1) The reforms of Vatican II which I believe moved the Catholic church in a much more "protestant" direction have taken a long time to trickle down to local parishes.

2) The conversion process from Catholicism to Protestantism was one that was viewed with much more hostility before Vatican II, resulting in many hurt feelings and susceptability to accepting many of the exaggerated anti-Catholic mistruths that some Protestants have held about Catholicism because of centuries of only hostile communication between the two groups.

3) A bitter convert from Catholicism, like a bitter former employee, spouse, girlfriend, boyfriend, etc, tends to normalize the negative while forgetting the positive. Many of the more recent converts from Catholicism have done so in a non-bitter fashion.

4) A decision like converting betwen Catholicism and Protestantism is strengthened when they can be defended with what appears to be good reasons to demonize the former associate.


These explanations may or may not apply to you and DHK, but they are just some possibities.

 

GoldDragon,

While I was in the Catholic Church the changes took place. The nuns lost their uniforms, the priest faced the people and spoke in English.

Personally, in my experience I cant think of even the tiniest bit of "hostility" between us and non-catholics. Mainly because we knew so few non-Catholics. I went to school with kids who were all Catholics, and so those same kids were the ones I hung around with. Most of my parents friends were Catholics. My mom did have one friend who was Jewish, but they got along fine. I also did have one Episcopalian friend, but religion was never a topic. He was the neihborhood "Eddie Haskel" type who was the 1st to get into mischief.(1st kid arrested, 1st one to get drunk, 1st to buy reefer, etc)

And I never even knew their were any "anti-Catholic"(your terminology, not mine) ministries or websites for many many years after being born of the Spirit and brought out of Catholicism.

I dont think so in my case. I didnt have any traumatic negative Catholic experiences. I had no molestation experiences, no abusive experiences of any kind, no type of negative experiences at all that I can think of.

I had no reason to "demonize" the Catholic Church. All I knew at the time was that I never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ while in it for 24 years.

Now...after much time researching the Catholic church from their own sources...I have great issues with much of Catholicism, over and above their not proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ in simplicity and in truth.

Blessings,

Mike

 

Thanks for your sharing, Mike!

Just to clarify, I was talking about hostility towards Catholics who converted to Protestantism, not to non-Catholics in general.

Also to clarify, when I said negative, I wasn't referring specifically to abuse or molestation, but I can see how it could be read that way.

I was referring to abuses of biblical teachings, like overzealous Marianism, de-emphasis of grace, overempahsis of sacraments, rituals, etc. Some of those practices, while being common, were in contradiction to the teachings of the Catholic church. Like how many Baptists live and understand doctrine in ways contrary to how their specific church teaches.

I hope you understand that I am a Baptist and also agree with you that this is one problem of Catholicism. I also think they have gradually addressed this over the years, largely through the influence of protestants willing to dialogue with Catholic leaders.

I join you in legitimate concerns about Catholicism. However, I have also found that many protestants in their zeal have misrepresented Catholic postions in order to defend the protestant one.

I am interested in using the truth to defend my disagreement with Catholicism, not misrepresentations of their beliefs.

[ April 03, 2005, 12:20 AM: Message edited by: Gold Dragon ]

 

Gold Dragon,

Gotcha. I misunderstood the 1st time.

I'm not, but thats OK.

I said...

And you said...

One problem? You believe that not proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ is just "one problem"?

To me its a problem that is hugely significant. The difference can be heaven or hell. This is not like "immersion" vs "pouring" or "calvinism" vs "arminianism". Those are disagreements, but those on both sides are going to heaven when they die.

Not so with a false gospel. A false gospel is much more important.

Do they now proclaim justification through faith alone? Have they dropped their heresy regarding baptismal regeneration, "works" justification, and their idolatry regarding the sinner saved by grace Mary? Have they eliminated the idolatry regarding that thing they call the "mass"?

I could go on and on of course, but these are just a few things.

I've seen that happen as well. But that doesnt mean that their are not legitimate issues with Catholicism. Issues that are nothing less than a false gospel, idolaty, heresy, and devilish false teaching.

I am too.

God bless,

Mike

 

So making disciples is not necessarily making "adherents to the Christian religion" and they can become followers of Jesus and stay in a Hindu or Buddhist context? What do you think of this, TragicPizza? Do you agree? </font>[/QUOTE]Hi Marcia. I just finished reading A Generous Orthodoxy and I'll try to give you some context about what Brian McLaren is saying here.

This quote is in the Chapter titled "Why I am Incarnational" and is based around Paul's passage in 1 Corinthians about liberty in sharing the gospel.

The implication that if Paul were living in the pluralistic (tolerant of many religions) society we live in today, the lines:

To the Buddhist I became as a Buddhist, so that I might win Buddhists;

To the Hindu I became as a Hindu, so that I might win Hindus;

To the Wiccan I became as a Wiccan, so that I might win Wiccans;

He also says the following a little later in the passage.

His distinction between the "Christian religion" and being a disciple of Christ is that while the Christian religion tries to be His disciples and witnesses bringing His good news to the world, many times we fail miserably. That the "kingdom of God" is not contained within the religion known as Christianity, while there is definitely a lot of overlap.

McLaren also goes out of his way to makes sure people don't read pluralistic relativism into his ideas.

He doesn't go into specifics about what it is like to be a Hindu or Buddhist Christian and admits that this is a really hard thing. He shares some stories about how evangelism and missions has been inculcated by the thinking of European colonialism. I believe the examples I gave earlier about Messianic Judaism, Native Indian spiritual Christianity, The Jesuit approach to the Chinese rites controversy, etc are examples of specifics that Brian McLaren would use as moving in the right direction.

 

I am answering Gold Dragon and Tragic-Pizza here because they were both making the same points.

I agree that there is a lot of cultural baggage in Christianity that is not needed. But as far as sticking with Buddhist and Hindu culture as a Christian, how can that be since both Buddhism and Hinduism are religions completely opposed to Chirstianity???

Please give an example of how a Christian could still be Christian in a Hindu or Buddhist context. I can't think of one. </font>[/QUOTE](I don't know if Gold has answered; if so please excuse the duplication)

I can't really say how it looks, because I've not seen it. However, I know that Christianity has been adept, over the centuries, in adapting the holidays/celebrations of other cultures into their own - two examples being Christmas and Easter. There are cultures in the world in which Buddhism and other religions have ingrained themselves - not so much the belief system as the holidays. celebrations, and such.

Imagine you're a Roman citizen in 100AD or so, living in the Subura of Rome. You're surrounded by temples to this or that god, civic holidays are built around celebrating this or that god, and the very meat sold in the marketplace was likely consecrated as a sacrifice to this or that god. There are things you will not do, like the annual sacrifice of a pinch of incense to Caesar, but you can't very well ignore the holidays or the cultural expectations - being togate on certain days, or paying the required taxes and tarrifs, and perhaps as a business owner paying protection money to one of the drinking groups originally formed to care for the temples of the Lares of the Croosroads...

All I'm saying is that we cannot, and should not, expect a group of people in, say, Bangladesh, Tokyo, or Beijing to act like white Southern Baptists. Their faith and worship and practice will look different.

 

To add to what tragic_pizza said, the council of Jerusalem is one of the first clashes of culture in Christianity, between Gentile and Jewish culture. And their final judgement is one that doesn't fully accept or fully reject either culture. It doesn't force Gentiles to be circumcized but it also asks the Gentiles to abstain from things that will be truly offensive to Jews, not because those things were sin in and of themselves (fornication being the exception).

 

Thank you for trying to clarify what McLaren means by these statements, and while I appreciate you attempting to do this, I am not sure this is much of a clarification. When Paul says he became as Jew for the Jews, and a Roman for the Romans, etc. it only means that he approached them knowing their beliefs and using that to preach about Jesus Christ. Paul never compromised on the message at all. He never said that one could be a follower of Christ while still worshiping the Romans gods. Messianic Judaism is not the same thing because the OT sacrifices, stories, events, etc. all point to the Messiah, Jesus Christ. OT Judaism and Christ are connected whereas Buddhism and Hinduism are not.

McLaren is not going into specifics about being a "Hindu Christian" or "Buddhist Christian" because either he does not understand what Buddhism and Hinduism are or because he does not know how to reconcile the complete contradictions between Buddhism/Hinduism and Christianity and so he just leaves it. I think this is an appalling thing to do -- to make a statement like this and not even attempt to defend or explain it (according to what you are saying about him).

My view is that it cannot work at all because there is no such thing as being a Buddhist or Hindu follower of Christ! It's like the people who are calling themselves Christian Wiccans. Well, of course, when you examine their beliefs, they are Wiccans who are just adotping Christ into their pantheon of gods. This is called syncretism and it's not the Christian faith at all. I don't think the examples you gave can explain how one can be a Buddhist or Hindu follower of Christ.

I asked for examples of being a Buddhist or Hindu Christian and no one can come up with any because the terms themselves, "Buddhist Christian" and "Hindu Christian," are oxymorons. One is delivered from Buddhism or Hinduism by becoming a Christian; one cannot remain on those beliefs or contexts of those beliefs and become Christian unless one is redefining Christianity, or redefining Buddhism and Hinduism.

 

When the first century Jews became Christians, they became Jewish Christians. When the first century Romans became Christians, they became Roman Christians. When the first century Greeks became Christians, they became Greek Christians. When the Vandals and Goths became Christians, they became Gothic Christians. And so on ...

All these groups contributed to the cultural makeup of the Christian religion that we have today in unique ways. Art, architecture, language, philosophy, practices, governments, holidays, theology, etc.

However, somewhere along the way, we decided that the Christian culture is a Euro-American culture and anyone in the world who becomes a Christian must abandon their evil culture and become a Euro-American. And religion/cultures/beliefs like Buddhism and Hinduism having nothing Euro-American in them must be evil in every way imaginable.

Like I said, I believe (and having read McLaren he also believes) that these other religions are not the way to Christ and are fatally flawed. However, they are intrinsic parts of their respective cultures and the good in them can be redeemed for Christ, just like the good in Jewish, Greek, Roman, Celtic, Gothic, American etc culture can be redeemed for Christ.

 

(In reply to DHK; apologies for not quoting)

Interesting.

However, the Jews sisn't leave Jerusalem, and until they were barred from worship there, they continued going to the synagogues and to the Temple. In fact, the book of Acts specifically mentions the Apostles going to the temple shortly after Pentecost, and Paul shaving his head for a vow (if memory serves). Again, I would never suggest that one can worship Buddha and Christ simultaneously, but there can and historically have been adjustments made for people who entered Christianity from other belief systems.

 

I witness to Wiccans and to Westerners who adopt Eastern beliefs like Hindu and Buddhist beleifs (which is what I myself was involved in for many years). If I were to apply the above statements the way Paul did when he talked about becoming as a Jew or as one under the law, not under the law, etc., it would not mean I would adopt those beliefs. It would mean I understood what they teach and how those people view the world.

To be "as a Wiccan" to win Wiccans means I understand what Wicca is about and what kind of people Wiccans are so that I can converse with them intelligently and present the gospel to them in a way that shows what their beliefs lack. It does NOT mean I am out to make Wiccans into Wiccan Christians, which is impossible. The term Wicca, like the terms Hindu and Buddhist, define specific belief systems that are incompatible with Christian beliefs. If a Wiccan becomes a follower of Chrsit, they are no longer Wiccan.

Besides the above statements relate to missions and not to remaining a Christian in a Buddhist or Hindu context, which is the issue here.

 

Maybe that is why Brian McLaren didn't use the phrase Buddhist Christian or Hindu Christian becaue they are incompatible. Instead he uses the phrases a Buddhist disciple of Christ and a Hindu disciple of Christ.

Brian McLaren also had this to say, for those who are worried about him promoting syncretism, relativism and one-world religion.

 

I think this is a no-brainer. I agree with this statement, but this does not answer the question.

This still does not explain how one can be a Buddhist or Hindu follower of Christ. Buddhism and Hinduism are religions that are incompatible with Christianity. One can use some Buddhist or Hindu beliefs as a springboard to discuss Christ (for example, reincarnation and the Hindu belief that one must go through this in order to be liberated, and showing how Christ brings liberation from our sin in one act of belief through is one act of redemption on the cross), but this is not the issue.

The issue remains: what are some specific examples of being a Buddhist or Hindu Christian? There are none and that is why this question is not getting answered. Even McLaren himself, who boldly assets this, apparently does not explain it or give examples.

 

But what is the difference between saying a "Buddhist Christian" and a "Buddhist disciple of Christ?" They are the same thing. I don't see the difference.

Wiccan Christian and Wicca follower of Christ - similar example: this is just 2 ways of saying the same thing.

 

I am not sure they were called Roman Christians. Even so, being Roman was being a citizen of Rome -- it did not mean they still followed the Roman gods. What you describe above, except for the Jews, are cultures, not religions. Yes, those cultures had certain religions but one could still be a Roman or Goth and follow Christ if they gave up the beliefs attached to that culture.

Buddhism and Hinduism are not cultures -- they are religions.

Either McLaren is getting religion and culture mixed up -- which takes away from his credibility for me -- or he is truly thinking one can remain Buddhist and follow Christ - which takes away from his credibility even more.

I am finding myself thinking that McLaren is not all that intelligent.

 

1 Corinthians 10: 14-22:

14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.

15 I speak as to wise men; judge for yourselves what I say.

16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.


18 Observe Israel after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

19 What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything?

20 Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons.

21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord's table and of the table of demons.

22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?

God bless,

Mike

 

I think this is a no-brainer. I agree with this statement, but this does not answer the question.

This still does not explain how one can be a Buddhist or Hindu follower of Christ. Buddhism and Hinduism are religions that are incompatible with Christianity. One can use some Buddhist or Hindu beliefs as a springboard to discuss Christ (for example, reincarnation and the Hindu belief that one must go through this in order to be liberated, and showing how Christ brings liberation from our sin in one act of belief through is one act of redemption on the cross), but this is not the issue.

The issue remains: what are some specific examples of being a Buddhist or Hindu Christian? There are none and that is why this question is not getting answered. Even McLaren himself, who boldly assets this, apparently does not explain it or give examples. </font>[/QUOTE]A good point. I'm guess all i am trying to do is invite discussion on the point; as you say, there aren't any examples. But must this mean that there can be no examples? Remember that I'm speaking culturally; niether McLaren, Gold, or myself advocates trying to worship Buddha and Christ at once - because, of course, it cannot be done.

 

I hope you've read my posts on page 9 for April 8th where I initially responded to your post and to this issue.

The statement above is mixing culture with religion. Of course, a Chinese person can be a Chinese Christian, or a Japanese person can be a Japanese Christian, but that is not the same as being a Buddhist follower of Christ!

You talk about the "good" in other cultures; that is not the same as saying there is "good" in other religions. I don't know of any good in Hinduism and Buddhism - you can always find some ethical teachings that look good, but when you get down to the nitty-gritty and see them in context of their beliefs, they are relating to salvation by works or they are related to something else even worse.

I don't think Jesus is about redeeming the "good" in other cultures or beliefs; he's about redeeming men and women from sin.

 

Thanks for your reply.

My answer to the above would be: Yes, there are no examples. It's impossible. Having studied Hindu and Buddhist beliefs for many years and having adopted some of the worldviews and practices prior to being rescued by Christ, I can say with certainty that it is impossible to be a Buddhist or Hindu follower/disciple of Christ.

Therefore, McLaren's assertion is wrong.