When there's a problem it's important to find the RIGHT answer.
A friend's pastor in the USA has recently written about the problems with fundamentalism there in http://weblog.wordcentered.org/archives/2007/05/01/why_he_joined_willow_creek_and_my_kneejerk_reaction.php This fundamentalism has been imported to France, by the way.
(Unless you know who these people are, I suggest that you scamper down to the paragraph that begins: The latter part of the lecture... and read from there...)
I was thinking early this morning about one of the emergent slogans "Belonging before believing" and about how right and how wrong it is.
How right, because churches have to be open communities that accept new arrivals and the uncommitted, and who know how to welcome them warmly.
How wrong, because still we don't really belong until we believe. Believing brings belonging.
It took me to Acts 5 : 12 - 13, where we see how people were drawn to the church but didn't dare join them.
It reminded me of my conversion when I so wanted to be a Christian, but I wouldn't go to any meetings, not to church, not to Christian Union meetings, because I knew that really I didn't belong because I didn't believe. Then I believed. Then I belonged. And I stayed ever since.
I should have gone, of course. I was invited, accepted, welcomed, urged, bribed, whatever... But my reluctance to go along was because of a recognition that I didn't really belong.
(Unless you know who these people are, I suggest that you scamper down to the paragraph that begins: The latter part of the lecture... and read from there...)
I was thinking early this morning about one of the emergent slogans "Belonging before believing" and about how right and how wrong it is.
How right, because churches have to be open communities that accept new arrivals and the uncommitted, and who know how to welcome them warmly.
How wrong, because still we don't really belong until we believe. Believing brings belonging.
It took me to Acts 5 : 12 - 13, where we see how people were drawn to the church but didn't dare join them.
It reminded me of my conversion when I so wanted to be a Christian, but I wouldn't go to any meetings, not to church, not to Christian Union meetings, because I knew that really I didn't belong because I didn't believe. Then I believed. Then I belonged. And I stayed ever since.
I should have gone, of course. I was invited, accepted, welcomed, urged, bribed, whatever... But my reluctance to go along was because of a recognition that I didn't really belong.
Comments
Do you think so?
Which brand of 'US-style' fundamentalism has come over? The kind Dr. Zichterman and Pastor Bixby are criticizing? Or the kind that Pastor Bixby refers to himself as?
One problem with Dr. Z's lecture is that it lumps all fundamentalists/separatists into one camp. The distinctions among fundamentalists in the USA are both sriking and numerous, not mere nuances. But this kind of "press" makes them nearly indiscernible for anyone on the outside looking in.
See my comment on Bob's blog (here) for further thoughts from me. They're not many. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: There's got to be a God-glorifying way to grieve over a lack of God-glory.
(How's that, Alan, for a multi-syllable response to a blog entry!? =})
Yes.
I do think that fundamentalism has been imported from the US to France, and probably in various styles and kinds.
I can't classify and subdivide the groupings of fundamentalism, obviously. I'd be interested to know more from you about this, though I imagine it would take greater exposure to the French Christian scene than either of us have had so far.
That's one reason why I found the latter part of his post more useful than the former part.
But when Pastor Bob talks about "high-control" does he mean the same thing that you mean by "grieving over a lack of God-glory"?
I imagine not.
i just think that whether one is in my position, Bob's position, Joe's position, the position of so-called leaders in so-called US-style fundamentalism, etc., all of our communication (even, or perhaps especially, our communication about what grieves us about this or that movement) ought to be glorifying to God.
sometimes i wonder if people spout off about such and such a movement's deficiencies (expressing dismay in the name of promoting God's cause) while doing so in a manner that is actually divisive or undermining to God's glory. sort of the whole taking two steps forward and one step backward type deal.
make sense?
What were your reflections on the "belonging before believing" thing - which was, after all, the bulk of the post I made?
just kidding.
i'll think on't while i tram to the library.