Emergent Church Movement

I had a long post written in response to one of your earlier posts but I was starting to write a book and including way too many ideas, so I'm scrapping it.

I'll just summarize to say that religions are also cultures and cultures are also religions. The dividing line is often more blurred than we think.

There are many parts of Buddhism that a Buddhist disciple of Christ would have to reject. There are many parts of Hinduism that a Hindu follower of Christ would have to turn from.

 

I agree that religions are often cultures; whether cultures are also religions would probably be a debatable point that would entail a discussion of what the word religion means, and would take up a lot of time and I don't have time for that now.

I still have not seen an example of a Hindu/Buddhist follower of Christ. What aspect of Hindu or Buddhist beliefs could a follower of Christ still hang on to and be true to following Christ? There is none that I can think of.

Hinduism and Buddhism are oppressive religions that put people in bondage. Christ is the answer to getting free from that bondage.

 

I'll keep an eye out for any examples that come my way. As I said before, I'm not well versed in these two faiths or converts from them.

In my chinese community, the buddhist converts I know of have done what what you have suggested and cut all ties to Buddhism. It helped that western "Christian" culture was already a large part of their lives so the transition was easy.

I guess I'm keeping myself open to that possiblity, but I could be wrong.

Christ is the answer.

 

I agree that religions are often cultures; whether cultures are also religions would probably be a debatable point that would entail a discussion of what the word religion means, and would take up a lot of time and I don't have time for that now.

I still have not seen an example of a Hindu/Buddhist follower of Christ. What aspect of Hindu or Buddhist beliefs could a follower of Christ still hang on to and be true to following Christ? There is none that I can think of.

Hinduism and Buddhism are oppressive religions that put people in bondage. Christ is the answer to getting free from that bondage. </font>[/QUOTE]Agreed.

Holidays? Festivals? Parades? Three examples that come to mind, meant in the manner we Protestants might celebrate St. Patrick's Day, or the way the Church made the Winter Solstice celebration into Christmas.

It isn't a perfect argument from my perspective; most likely you are right. Interesting to discuss, though.

 

I guess there are many "Chinese traditional" religious aspects that many in my chinese christian community have kept.

We still celebrate Chinese new year and things like lion dances and martial arts. These are often full of religious symbolism but we celebrate the non-religious aspects of them.

The traditional chinese weddings have tons of religious symbolism from the names of dishes to the colours on clothes and writing.

If we removed everything that was "religious" in our Chinese culture because we were Christians, there would be very little left that was Chinese.

My in-laws were brought up in a strict fundamentalist baptist church and frowned on a lot of these things and still do. They also grew up in the American "melting-pot" and are very westernized.

However, for many of the more recent immigrants from China who have converted to Christianity, these aspects of culture are core to their identity and not really religious at all.

 

But celebrating holidays or keeping some traditional wedding symbols (and I am not necessarily endorsing this) is a far, far cry from being a "Buddhist disciple of Christ." I am sure that Christian converts from Buddhism do not see themselves as "Buddhist disciples of Christ," so why does McLaren want to make people think this is okay?

There are cultural things in our culture from paganism like the days of the week or even some aspects of Christmas (like the yule log) but they have become de-religiousized so to speak. Doing these things, imo, is not following another religion.

When someone makes a statement that one can be a Hindu or Buddhist follower of Christ, they are showing either ignorance or syncretism.

 

You know, there are many Christians who practice martial arts. I used to be dead-set against this, but have recently been exposed to some Christians who are very strong in their faith - and, for the record, Baptist...

 

I'm thinking that, rather than ignorance or whatever that second word is, McLaren is trying to shock people into thought and discussion. He admits as much in his Foreword, though not offering any specifics as to where in the book he's just throwing a match to gasoline.

From what you've posted and Gold Dragon has posted, I'm thinking we're basically in agreement. Maybe we're approaching the same conclusion from different directions is all...

 

I think she sees the light.

This is what McLaren, pizza-guy and myself are talking about.

 

Buddhist converts to Christianity are usually the ones who can also make the transition to the western "Christian" culture. For many others that culture jump is not one they can make but that shouldn't stop them from being followers of Christ. I'm not talking about continuing to worship Buddha, seeking nirvana, and all that.

 

It was the Buddhists that killed William Carey's son, who first went to Burma. Then Adoniram Judson went with Carey's advice. The Buddhist's treated him most cruelly. They jailed him, tried to starve him, beat him, chained him. His sufferings were beyond comprehension. His biography is a good one to read. He worked in Burma for years before he saw his first convert. But he never gave up.
It was only God's grace that sustained him and kept him. Otherwise he would have been killed by the Buddhists. Many Buddhists converts were killed. Judson's wife died, along with some of his own children. Life was not kind to him. But the fruit that he had in Burma toward the end of his life was great. When a Buddhist came to Christ he got saved, and left the Buddhist religion behind, completely. He had to. There was no choice.

The same is true now in India with Hinduism. There is a sect of Hindus that are very upset with many of the lower caste Hindus that are turning to Christ. They would like to implement a law that would make it against the law for them to do so. If that fails they (as it has and will continue to do so), they will simply persecute them unto death. These Hindus know that when you convert to Christianity it is life and death decision. It may very well mean death to them. You can't be a Hindu and a Christian at the same time. You leave your Hindu beliefs behind, and become a Christian.

In most Islamic nations it is the same thing. It is such an insult to the name of the family for a Muslim to convert to Christianity, that in many cases the family themselves will take matters into their own hands and kill that member of the family that has converted. You can't be a Muslim and Christian at the same time. You leave your Islamic beliefs behind. The two are diametrically opposed one to the other.

If you want to apply the passage in question, apply it to your own nation where it is most fitting.
Look at this way about a hundred years ago.
"To the blacks became I as black."
Would your ancestors have sat in the same restraunt as a black person, gone to the same washroom as a black person, lived in the same neighborhood as a black person, rode on the same seat in a public bus as a black person, etc. "To the black became I as black, that I might win some." Look into the sordid past of your own nation before looking into the religions of the third world nations if you want to make a just comparison of what that verse means.
DHK

 

It doesn't matter if "strong Christians" are doing martial arts - that does not make it okay. Strong Christians can do wrong things -- all Christians can be deceived.

Having said that, I would say that my view is that the hard martial arts like karate, if taught without the teaching of "chi" or "ki," can be just a teaching of forms for fighting. I am not necessarily endorsing Christians learning fighting techniques, but that's a different issue.

However, Eastern beliefs are at the heart of soft martial like tai chi and aikido, and so I see problems with those.

 

Buddhist converts to Christianity are usually the ones who can also make the transition to the western "Christian" culture. For many others that culture jump is not one they can make but that shouldn't stop them from being followers of Christ. I'm not talking about continuing to worship Buddha, seeking nirvana, and all that. </font>[/QUOTE]Then exactly what are you talking about? How does one retain Buddhist and Hindu beliefs and be a Christian? You continue to talk culture here, but McLaren's statement was about being a Buddhist/Hindu disciple of Christ. Buddhists don't worship Buddha, btw. Buddhists believe all have the Buddha nature and we are on a journey to realize that. It's more subtle that worship of Buddha. Buddhism teaches that desire is caused by suffering and so we must liberate ourselves by ceasing to desire. A host of techniques, including Buddhist meditation, are given to detach from desire.

It's 'syncretism' and it means the combining of different belief systems with each others. There's a lot of that going on today. It usually happens very gradually. When Christianity is syncretized, it's no longer Christianity. The Gnostic Christians were doing this in the 1st and 2nd centuries (though Gnosticism was not fully formed in the 1st century but just beginning -- Colossians and 1 John were partly written to refute Gnostic heresies coming into the church).

If McLaren is trying to just shock, or throwing a match to gasoline, I consider that very juvenile. Why can't he just present the issues in a mature fashion, and by being accurate? Why throw out terms like a Buddhist or Hindu disciple of Christ, if that's not what he means? And if he can't define it, what's his problem? My impression of him from interviews is that he likes ambiguity and doesn't want to define anything. He even refuses to answer some questions about doctrine. That is not a biblical approach, nor is it an approach I can respect. He is not exhibiting maturity, intelligence, clarity, or sound biblical thinking. So why should I listen to him?

 

Let's see. The Jews killed Jesus and Stephen. Conversion to Christianity resulted in being eaten by lions in the Roman Coliseum while Paul, Peter and most of the apostles died by Roman hands. And those barbaric Goths don't get me started no how they were completely incompatible with Christianity.

Who are you talking to here? I don't quite understand what you are saying.

 

It is interesting you should ask that question, because the first Chapter in A Generous Orthodoxy is called Chapter 0 and is basically trying to convince folks not to listen to him and stop reading the book. Simply because McLaren understands that his message will not be recieved well by many folks and it isn't his intention to upset folks like you.

So my answer would be you shouldn't listen to him.

It is interesting you mention McLaren's style of answering questions and saying that it isn't biblical.

I can think of at least one key person in the bible who rarely gave a straight answer to questions directed at him, often throwing questions back at his questioner, giving shocking hyperboles or responding with ambiguous analogies.

 

And so the point should be obvious that pagan religions and Biblical religions do not mix, at all. The are contrary one to another. One must forsake paganism completely to become a true Christian. I use the word paganism in its general sense referring to other world religions outside of Christianity. An unsaved "Baptist" is just as much a pagan as an unsaved "Wiccan."

1 Corinthians 9:19-22 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

These were the verses originally posted in defence of McLaren's position. Paul said: "And unto the Jews I became as a Jew," and that was used as a defence to be as a Hindu or a Buddhist. But Paul is not talking about religion, he is talking of culture. I have pointed this out in two previous posts already. It is something that many Americans are not willing to do--adapt to the culture of others.

Perhaps the only mistake I may have made in posting this is not to look where you come from, (the same place I do--Canada). I am using an illustration from American history. It is directed to the many Americans who post here and are reading here. In our nation as well, the attitude that many have toward the aboriginals or French, or other races, (depending on who you are, or where you live) may be quite ungodly. Racism does exist. Many instead of fitting into a culture, would rather shun the culture. Paul said that I became a Jew; I became weak; I became as those without the law. He adapted to the various cultures (not religions) that were there.
The total opposite existed in America one hundred years ago in respect with the Negros. Paul would have said "To the black became I as black." But the average American of that era would have considered such an attitude that Paul taught as anethema.
DHK

 

I used to subscribe to a Baptist publication. I think it was called "Commission" or something like that. It's a monthly or bi-monthly magazine letting Baptists see what their contributions were doing overseas with missionaries proclaiming the gospel.

Every month they would have articles and photos from who knows where...China, South America, Thailand, Russia, eastern Europe, the middle east. And everywhere they reported from we saw examples of new converts practicing christianity. There was no "synchretism" going on whatsoever. Yes, of course people dressed normally for the culture. Nobody handed people in the middle east slacks and dress shirts and sportcoats and ties to where. But these new comverts had been born again and were now no longer practicing Hinduism, Buddhism, Confuciousism, etc etc.

The Holy Spirit of God made it clear to their hearts that they needed to leave the false behind, and change to the true.

I hear of all of this buisiness that...

"Oh, we cant win them unless we make christianity just like what they are used to! Why, we cant expect them to simply change, and leave all of that falsehood behind!"

Yes we can! We've been doing it for 2000 years now just fine. Why do we all of a sudden believe that we know better than God regarding these things?

Some of this type of mindset is fine. I'm not saying its all worthless. But I've interacted with enough people who are into this to know that many cases they have simply lost confidence in God and Gods ability to speak to people concerning "Come out of her and be ye seperate".

If God is working on someones heart, He is saying that to them internally, so why do we shrink back from saying the same thing as God?

God bless,

Mike

 

DHK, D28guy, Marcia.

I understand that it will be a long time if ever before you will ever understand what McLaren, tragic-pizza and I are talking about with respect to culture/religion and becoming a follower of Christ.

My role here wasn't to convince you in agreeing with us, but simply giving some context to some quotes of Mr. McLaren to make sure people didn't completely misunderstand, misinterpret and abuse what he said to attack him. Feel free to disagree with our ideas.

So in the Baptist spirit of Soul Liberty, I leave you with a passage of scripture to reflect on how Paul approached the values of a pagan religious system. Notice a few things:

1) Notice when and for what Paul uses condemnation and praise
2) Notice what Paul quotes from in his evangelism

 

Several people here are writing that MacLaren is advocating syncretism.

Syncretism is error.

Translating the Gospel into someone's language is translation.

Syncretism is error.

 

Agreed. And that is why McLaren isn't advocating syncretism.