![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fimages%2Fflickr_logo_gamma.gif.v1.2
){kind=logo}
![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.feedburner.com%2Ffb%2Fimages%2Fpub%2Ffeed-icon32x32.png)
![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.friendofmissional.org%2Ffriend_of_missional_small.gif)
Who Do You Follow?
Do you follow Mark Driscoll, Rob Bell, Brian McClaren, Doug Pagitt, or Jesus?
1 Dear brothers and sisters, when I was with you I couldn't talk to you as I would to mature Christians. I had to talk as though you belonged to this world or as though you were infants in the Christian life. 2 I had to feed you with milk and not with solid food, because you couldn't handle anything stronger. And you still aren't ready, 3 for you are still controlled by your own sinful desires. You are jealous of one another and quarrel with each other. Doesn't that prove you are controlled by your own desires? You are acting like people who don't belong to the Lord. 4 When one of you says, "I am a follower of Paul," and another says, "I prefer Apollos," aren't you acting like those who are not Christians?
5 Who is Apollos, and who is Paul, that we should be the cause of such quarrels? Why, we're only servants. Through us God caused you to believe. Each of us did the work the Lord gave us. 6 My job was to plant the seed in your hearts, and Apollos watered it, but it was God, not we, who made it grow.
7 The ones who do the planting or watering aren't important, but God is important because he is the one who makes the seed grow. 8 The one who plants and the one who waters work as a team with the same purpose. Yet they will be rewarded individually, according to their own hard work. 9 We work together as partners who belong to God. You are God's field, God's building not ours. 10 Because of God's special favor to me, I have laid the foundation like an expert builder. Now others are building on it. But whoever is building on this foundation must be very careful.
11 For no one can lay any other foundation than the one we already have Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 3:1-11
If Scripture is true and Jesus is who He says He is, I follow Him. If Scripture is not true, then Jesus cannot be who He says He is and I will not follow Him. Case closed. There is no need to discuss social justice, cause, or being missional under the banner of the Church if the One who loves the Church is a fraud.
Just some thoughts in light of some of the discussions I've dragged myself into (or hae been dragged into) recently here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Travis,
Thank you for stopping by and contributing to our conversation!
Posted by: BrianD | September 28, 2007 at 10:47 AM
Travis,
You hit the nail right on the head with this post...again.
All of the argument over Bell, McLaren, Driscoll or even Calvin, Luther and whoever else they want to throw in there, is pointless.
As I posted on RelevantChristian, the only answers I need can be found in the bible.
Peace
Posted by: Jimmy | September 28, 2007 at 01:28 PM
Amen to that, Travis!
Many times we can get up with too much talk and too little do.
Dino
Posted by: Dino Mapa | September 29, 2007 at 05:05 AM
Don't we still need preaching though? Fellowship? Teaching?
Can we just wait for the world to pick up a Bible?
Posted by: Scott Starr | September 29, 2007 at 11:34 AM
"As I posted on RelevantChristian, the only answers I need can be found in the bible."
If that's true then why are you blogging?
Posted by: Scott Starr | September 29, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Scott,
I'm not sure where you arrived at the conclusion that anyone posting here said we should stop preaching, fellowshipping, or teaching?
Posted by: Travis Johnson | September 29, 2007 at 11:41 AM
I have not arrived at any conclusions. I'm asking. Will you answer?
I was looking at these quotes:
" Case closed. There is no need to discuss social justice, cause, or being missional under the banner of the Church if the One who loves the Church is a fraud."
""As I posted on RelevantChristian, the only answers I need can be found in the bible."
What do you mean by "no need to discuss"?
Posted by: Scott Starr | September 29, 2007 at 01:05 PM
I understand the scriptures you cited. I also understand that the best way to change the world is to transform people into Christians. still, there seems to be a lot of confusion out there on just what a Christian is. Hence, there needs to be discussion.
Posted by: Scott Starr | September 29, 2007 at 02:03 PM
I said:
"There is no need to discuss social justice, cause, or being missional under the banner of the Church IF the One who loves the Church is a fraud."
If Jesus is not who He says He is, I have no desire to discuss anything under the banner of the Church. It too would be a fraud and I would have better things to do with my time.
What exactly is conflicting you?
Posted by: Travis Johnson | September 29, 2007 at 05:19 PM
Travis..
I have enjoyed the discussion so far. I do have a question, and I hope it isn't taken in an argumentative manner, cause its not meant that way. It is solely a question to promote thought and further conversation. I can admit I am a pretty strong Arminian (Wesleyan), meaning that I would strongly disagree with Driscoll on issues of grace and atonement, both pretty important, even to the point where I think Calvinism doesn't line up with Scripture, or at least a "proper interpretation" of scripture. To get to the point, how do I call him out on his "misbelief?" He is wrong (in my opinion) about central parts of faith. Do I get to proclaim him a heretic?
Posted by: Josh Butcher | October 01, 2007 at 12:20 AM
He is also a complimentarian. In light of Romans 16:7, I don't know how he arrives at that strict position. But, I do think most people would say that both issues are non-essentials. Unless someone is smoking crack, you would have to agree that the virgin birth would be an essential. There are too many issues that depend on it. And too many direct Bible claims.
Further, a challenge to the Virgin Birth is also a challenge to the authority and inerrancy of Scritpure.
Of course, if Jesus wasn't born of a virgin, then "Jesus is born of a lying whore" and He is not who He says He is and I have wasted my life following a man who died for nothing. Of course, that is not the case and Scripture and history testify accordingly.
So, that's how I differentiate between someone who has a different position than me on non-essential issues and Brian McClaren or someone else who denies core issues of the faith and who I would agree is teaching heresy.
I've enjoyed the conversation as well, Josh. Thanks for stopping by...hope its a habit.
Posted by: travis johnson | October 01, 2007 at 07:31 AM
I agree with you that the complimentarian/egalitarian issue is probably not essential. What I'm asking is - is the atonement, and/or one's particular view of it, an essential? Moreover, if I believe, as an Arminian, that predestination and perseverance are heresies, and essentials, do I get to call them out as heresy? And, if these aren't essentials, when does it become essential? what's the line?
Posted by: Josh Butcher | October 01, 2007 at 09:54 AM
On issues like these, we are left to arrive at destinations that aren't fully mapped out by Scripture. While we should be diligent to work out our faith and to study the Scriptures, they are really inconsequential to following Jesus. I think its a bummer that in order to be involved in Acts 29, you largely have to be a Calvinist. I just don't understand the elevation of that issue in that network which is otherwise very appealing to me personally.
Whether I have been predestined by Christ or have chosen to follow Him is inconsequential. I'd like to think that I have a decent handle on it as well. But, like a racing stripes on an race car, it doesn't matter. The car still drives whether I have that one right or not.
An essential is water. If I don't have it, I thirst to death. An essential is the resurrection of Jesus. Without it, there is no resurrection for you or me.
On the non-essential, dimly lit issues, we are encouraged by Paul's teachings in 1 Corinthians 13:
---------------
12 Now we see things imperfectly as in a cloudy mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely.
--------------
So, for me, especially as a pastor where this stuff gets worked out practically, the line is obvious. When a guy is battling a drug addiction and is desperate for Jesus to transform him, I don't question whether he was their by his own freewill or if he was there because God predestined him for Christ. I just love the guy and share Jesus with him.
Posted by: travis johnson | October 01, 2007 at 10:37 AM
On issues like these, we are left to arrive at destinations that aren't fully mapped out by Scripture. While we should be diligent to work out our faith and to study the Scriptures, they are really inconsequential to following Jesus. I think its a bummer that in order to be involved in Acts 29, you largely have to be a Calvinist. I just don't understand the elevation of that issue in that network which is otherwise very appealing to me personally.
Whether I have been predestined by Christ or have chosen to follow Him is inconsequential. I'd like to think that I have a decent handle on it as well. But, like a racing stripes on an race car, it doesn't matter. The car still drives whether I have that one right or not.
An essential is water. If I don't have it, I thirst to death. An essential is the resurrection of Jesus. Without it, there is no resurrection for you or me.
On the non-essential, dimly lit issues, we are encouraged by Paul's teachings in 1 Corinthians 13:
---------------
12 Now we see things imperfectly as in a cloudy mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely.
--------------
So, for me, especially as a pastor where this stuff gets worked out practically, the line is obvious. When a guy is battling a drug addiction and is desperate for Jesus to transform him, I don't question whether he was their by his own freewill or if he was there because God predestined him for Christ. I just love the guy and share Jesus with him.
Posted by: travis johnson | October 01, 2007 at 10:39 AM
Thanks. That was a great reply. I wholeheartedly agree that on the practical level, where people are blasted with drug addictions, marriage problems, sexual dysfunction and spiritual indifference that loving the person and sharing Christ are the most important things. The following quote from "The Lost Link" hits at how I see the whole argument.
"What has been the greatest hindrance to the cause of Christ? You say infidelity. I admit it is but who is the cause of so much unbelief or infidelity? Was it Tom Payne, Voltaire or Bob Ingersoll? No, no, but few ever read their books. Then what has caused the great trouble wherever Christ is preached? It is because every church or denomination's internal laws are contrary to Christ's law. See the little preacher in the stand riding some hobby, branding all others as heretics or devils. So he wounds someone or more and breaks the unity of the Spirit and brings division instead of unity, hatred instead of love. Thus the world stands in unbelief for Christ and that we all be one, that the world may believe. This division caused infidelity. If you want to see a church scattered, just pull the string of church doctrines and you can destroy more good than the greatest revivalist can do. Oh, preachers, do not scatter the flock and make infidelity. Do not make the people to abhor their offerings as did the sons of Eli. 1 Sam. 2:17. Don't ask more than God has provided. Do not be a hireling, do not look after pay instead of the flock."
As you know, R.G. Spurling saw the church as "blackened" by the response to the Arian controversy and the Nicene creed, that this man-made creed violated the law of love so essential to the gospel.
Posted by: Josh Butcher | October 01, 2007 at 12:54 PM
Should someone with any measure of leadership influence in a Scripturally-faithful local church promote the idea that Scripture is not authoritative or that Christ was a fraud, what do you think would happen?
Posted by: travis johnson | October 01, 2007 at 01:29 PM