Adventist pastor Samir Selmanovic is leaving Crosswalk Church, a progressive Adventist church in Loma Linda, CA, and moving to New York City to build an interfaith community named Faith House Manhattan.  It is safe to say that Selmanovic represents the opposite end of the Adventist theological spectrum from Jim Keesler, who was featured on the last post.  Links to the background information found on Selmanovic’s website is found below.

While admirable in his ability to think big and take on a challenge that many would shrink from, I am a saddened that Selmanovic minimizes the uniqueness of Christianity, putting it on par with Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and even atheism. Christianity is a faith that makes bold claims for itself based on the claims Jesus Christ made about himself.  Our calling as Christians is to fulfill the great commission, clearly proclaiming the person and work of Jesus Christ, who shed his blood on the cross so that we might be reconciled to God.  The gospel message is not only for Christians, it is for the whole world who is lost without Christ.  When we dispense with Jesus and his gospel in the name of learning how to “love better,” or “get along with people of other faiths,” we’ve taken leave of the fundamental basis for Jesus coming to our world–“to seek and save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10).  As professed Christ-followers, the most unloving thing we can do is neglect to uphold what Jesus said about himself, that he is “the way, the truth and the life,” and that no one comes to the Father but through him (John 14:6). “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

Welcome to the Faith House Project

(PDF available here: Welcome)

What is the Faith House Project?

(PDF available here: One community, multiple religions?)

Frequently asked questions

(PDF available here: Other Frequently Asked Questions)

Early Endorsements

(PDF available here: Early Endorsements)

Greg,

I am in a state of shock over this. If this project is endorsed in any way by the Adventist church, then the SDA church will no longer be any kind of a Christian church--not even an apostate church--this is New Age spirituality and is part of the movement to bring all world religions together into a one world religion. This is clearly the spirit of Anti-Christ. What do you think of this project Guibox? I have an idea you won’t agree with this movement either.

But what is scary is, it is true that mainline Adventism is supporting this. If you go further under the endorsements page you will find an endorsement of this project by Raj Attiken--President of the Ohio Conference of SDAs! Then you find several more mainstream SDA endorsements.  And of course they find EGW quotes to back this project up. EGW would be rolling in her grave.

In this case it is the SDA church that is helping to bring in the one world religion--how ironic.

This illustrates what happens when the Bible is no longer the inerrant standard of truth.

This SDA pastor is saying that all roads lead to God. Bring on the religion of the Rainbow--the New Age of Aquarius is here!

Stan

[quote author="Stan Ermshar"]Greg,
What do you think of this project Guibox? I have an idea you won’t agree with this movement either.

Oh, I don’t know. Some people say I’m beginning to look alot like Buddha physically and I’ve always wanted to walk around with a red dot in the middle of my forehead that wasn’t a stubborn pimple.

Seriously though. If this an effort to evangelize by association, I say why not? If it is a way to minimize the Christian faith by saying ‘it doesn’t matter how we get to heaven, we all serve the same God’ that is another story all together.

[quote author="Stan Ermshar"]But what is scary is, it is true that mainline Adventism is supporting this. If you go further under the endorsements page you will find an endorsement of this project by Raj Attiken--President of the Ohio Conference of SDAs! Then you find several more mainstream SDA endorsements.

We must either make sure that it hasn’t veered away from it’s initial purpose or we may be mistaken because both endorsements by Attiken and Jon Paulien are along the lines of ‘Adventist outreach’ and not ecumenical amalgamation.

From Attiken:

Yet these are the very explorations needed if the church is to be faithful to its prime-directive to follow Jesus into His mission field. Courageous missional entrpreneurs must emerge who can incarnate the gospel in the marketplace in indigenous forms while remaining faithful to scriptures.

From Paulien

I believe at its best, the Adventist message can and should impact the world in ways beyond what the institutional church is capable of..He has the kind of vision and drive that in the right setting can bring the Adventist message and world view to the attention of people we could not reach any other way.

Every other endorsement from other SDAs on his site is focused on ‘Adventist missions for Christ’ not ecumenism.

Either this was very ‘early endorsements’ before the full plan was laid out or we are perhaps misunderstanding what is going on. I had thought that Paulien worked at Andrews Theological Seminary but this quote says Loma Linda.

Either way, the ‘uber-conservative-the SDA church is going apostate’ arm of the SDA church is going to have a field day with this.

After further reflection on Selmenovic’s observations, the assertion I’m most concerned about is that Christianity is somehow broken and in need of deconstruction and “re-imagining.” Christianity is not broken–the Church has prevailed against greater foes than the postmodern mind and emerged stronger than ever.  What I see here is an attempt to reformulate Christianity into something more palatable for people of diverse religious professions, including atheists.  From a purely logical standpoint, this will never happen without doing serious damage to the fundamentals of the Christian faith and the person of Jesus Christ.

What’s missing from Selmanovic’s introductory materials is any clear desire to introduce Christ to people who have either rejected him (as in the cases of Judaism and atheism) or have mischaracterized him (as in the case of Islam).  What’s more, there is no reference to Christianity as being the basis for this outreach, rather, multiple assertions are made that de-emphasize the Christian faith and put it on a par with every other religion, tacitly assuming they all lead to the same place.

In his introductory blog post, Selmanovic does admit he is a Christ-follower, but in the next breath he steps back from his profession of faith: “I am a follower of Christ. But at times I also find myself to be a Muslim, a Jew, and even an atheist. This is because I have been blessed by the love, care, and wisdom from sojourners in other religions. In fact, I don’t know if I would be walking with Christ today if it was not for their help.”

This amalgamated profession of faith seems designed to disarm non-Christians who might be put off by Selmanovic’s Christian worldview, but it reduces the walk with Christ to a personal decision that is devoid of eternal significance.  The greater good, it seems, is to be “blessed by the love” of our fellow man, whether or not they believe Jesus Christ is the Lamb who was slain for our sins and is the only way to be reconciled to God.

All of this brings to mind Paul’s counsel to the Corinthian church:

“For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,

‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.’

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” (1 Corinthians 1:18-25 ESV)

Without further clarification from Selmanovic, I see no way he can be “relevant” to Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and atheists without also being a stumbling block, unless of course he removes Christ from the equation.

Greg

Posted anonymously by: Julius

Greg and Stan,

I’m personally excited about the path that Samir is about to explore because Scripture provides us with enough leads on how other religions and peoples of the world would and could be part of God’s Kingdom.  We have to remember that the 2nd Person of the Godhead became Jesus of Nazareth, not the other way around.  Meaning, God is greater than the incarnate manifestation 2000 years ago; God is the Light of the world that shines to all people and reveals Himself to all people through nature and revelation (biblical examples are Melchizedek, Balaam, Joseph’s Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, the Magi).

“Evangelism” should be as much about learning from others how Christ has led them as about teaching them about the historic Jesus.  You can’t jump from being open to how God is leading and teaching others (which I believe is close to Samir’s position) than New Age Spirituality.  (This is like...when some speaks about the importance of church structure and authority, you accuse them of being a Catholic and a Jesuit [not that being either is in and of itself a bad thing]!) And besides…

Is there nothing at all to learn from New Age Spirituality as Christians?  I’ve invited a wicca to my world religions class to interview him (yes, a rare him) and learn about his beliefs and values.  I’ve found much to learn, and that in ways that I don’t fully understand, God was working in and on his life.  All religions may not lead to God, but all truths come from God.

Wouldn’t it be beautiful if we can affirm the presence of God in the faith and life of persons in other traditions and be open to the diverse ways God reveals Himself to humanity?  We can take a confessional approach and testify to what has happened in our own lives.  In the process, We certainly critique and disagree, without passing definitive judgment on others. Loyalty to our own tradition can be combined with respect for other traditions. I see a commnity such as Samir’s attempting genuine dialogue and mutual learning about how God is at work in our lives.

(I’ve written about this in Spectrum and excerpted a key portion in my blog, if you’d care to read more.)

Julius,

Thank you for your contributions to this discussion, even though we see this issue very differently.  Please forgive me if what I am about to say sounds disrespectful or harsh, and please do me the favor of replying to what I have written here, because as a Christ-follower I invite your criticism and am willing to be held accountable for my words.

I completely agree that Jesus is greater than the image of the humanity he became, for he is “the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power” (Hebrews 1:3 ESV).

I also agree that God reveals himself through nature.  As Paul says in Romans 1:18-20, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”

Where I disagree with you is in citing Old Testament examples of those who lived before the full revelation of Jesus Christ, and your suggestion that salvation without Christ is possible on this side of Calvary.  If man is “without excuse” having rejected the God of creation, he is without hope if he rejects the God who put on flesh and died for our sins.

As professed Christ-followers, our great commission is to make disciples of Jesus, not to see how broadly we can define the declarations of Scripture to include those who deny him.

Julius, the rubber meets the road with what Jesus said about himself: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6 ESV).  In another oft-quoted text, Jesus says, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” Further, Jesus says these very hard words: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him” (John 3:36 ESV).

These straightforward words of Jesus Christ do not leave wiggle room for the assertions you made about having a passive coexistence with traditions (religions) that do not acknowledge, and in many cases deny the Messiah.

Concerning the point you made on your blog about needing to have a “conversation” and not a “conversion,” we have no evidence in the New Testament that this method of evangelism was practiced by the apostles–in fact, we have the opposite.

In concluding his sermon to the Jews at Pentecost, Peter also affirmed Jesus as the only way God can forgive sin: “Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls” (Acts 2:37-41 ESV)

In Athens, the apostle Paul preached Jesus and the resurrection to the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers (Acts 17:18).  If he were following your advice, he would have settled with hearing their philosophies about life and affirming what God has revealed to them.  But notice, he did not come to learn from them, he came to proclaim Christ to them.  “What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you” (Acts 17:23).  And later, “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead” (Acts 17:30-31 ESV).

When impressed by the Holy Spirit to join the Ethiopian eunuch on the road to Gaza, Philip found him reading Isaiah.  Instead of seeking to build a common bond by validating his readings of the Jewish scriptures, he instead proclaimed Christ. “Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus” (Acts 8:35), followed by an immediate conversion (not conversation) and baptism (Acts 8:38).  Earlier in the very same chapter, Simon the magician was converted only after hearing the gospel from Philip (Acts 8:12-13).

In summary, apart from Jesus, “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12 ESV).

We do a disservice to the revealed Word of God and the Person of Jesus Christ when we suggest there is any other way of salvation, because he has made himself so clear.

“How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” (Romans 10:14-17 ESV)

Greg

Posted anonymously by: Julius

Thank you, Greg, for taking the time to comment on my comments.  I also appreciate your straightforward answers.

If, in describing my understanding, I insinuated that “salvation without Christ is possible on this side of Calvary,” I apologize.  I didn’t mean that.  On either side of Calvary, salvation is not possible without Christ, for Christ is God.  Christ was able to say what he said in John 14 and Acts 4 because He is God, and salvation apart from God is not salvation.

What I’m open to is the possibility that Christ the Lord of the Universe is at work in the lives of people in other religions and traditions.  Yes, we must preach the gospel as we understand it and share Christ as we know him from Scripture and our experience--unapologetically and unequivocally.  And the same time, couldn’t we also do our best to see Christ in them? 

You brought up Paul in Athens.  Frankly, it is that story that got me in the trajectory that I’m in with regard to evangelism and approaches to other religions.  Paul sees that in the religions of the Romans there is Christ the unnamed God.  He doesn’t negate their experience, but seeks to amplify it with what he has to share.

Certainly, there is no other name but Christ’s by which we must be saved.  Like Paul, I’m able to see Christ both through and apart from Christianity.

(In addition to all this, I’d engage you further on the presupposition that you seem to be working with, that is, that what Peter, Paul and Philip did provide us with limits of what we can do to evangelize.  Just because Peter, Paul and Philip did something, does that automatically make it normative today?  My answer is no.  But this is getting into hermeneutics, which frankly will take too much for either of us, I think.)

Thanks for your questions and challenges.  They do prick my soul.  As I go to bed, I’ll meditate upon your words.

[quote author="Julius"]What I’m open to is the possibility that Christ the Lord of the Universe is at work in the lives of people in other religions and traditions.  Yes, we must preach the gospel as we understand it and share Christ as we know him from Scripture and our experience--unapologetically and unequivocally.  And the same time, couldn’t we also do our best to see Christ in them?

Julius, I see where you are coming from now, and I appreciate the reasonable dialogue, even when we disagree.

Regarding Christ working in other religions and traditions, I cannot go as far as you because we just don’t have the Scriptural support for this, although God’s Spirit is most certainly working on the hearts of people regardless of their tradition.  Let’s not forget that Jesus established the Christian Church (Matthew 16:18) and gave us no reason to believe he had or would establish other churches in parallel.

Furthermore, these different traditions make exclusive truth claims that directly oppose each other, so in a way, it’s more reasonable to believe they are all false (including Christianity) than to believe they all lead to the same place.  For instance, Christians believe Jesus Christ is literally God, but Islam claims he was merely a prophet, subservient to Muhammad, no less.  The Jews believe Jesus was a deranged, blasphemous rabbi and certainly not the Messiah.  Buddhists would not acknowledge Jesus as deity at all, at best considering him an enlightened teacher.  Religions making a practice of witchcraft certainly do not harmonize with anything remotely related to Jesus being “the way the, the truth and the life.” Therefore, we muddy the waters as Christians when we assert that these other traditions can coexist peacefully with the very exclusive truth claims Christ made for himself.

I definitely appreciate the desire to reach out to people of other faiths and in no way do I discourage this.  I do not advocate retreating into a shell so we can protect ourselves from the world and feel good about our own salvation while ignoring those around us who are lost without Christ.

What I am advocating is that we don’t shy away from the truth claims Jesus made about himself because of our need to feel accepted by members of other religious traditions.  I don’t think Paul watered down his beliefs when interacting with the Athenians–the Bible tells us he was teaching about Jesus and the resurrection and as a result, was called a “babbler” who was teaching about “foreign divinities!” (Acts 17:18)

I believe that many Christians today have bought into the idea that a new kind of evangelism is needed to reach the “post-modern” mindset.  In order to be seen as “relevant,” we seem willing to trade the long-held and biblically-based propositional truths about Jesus away, advocating something new and different that will attract more people.  I believe, like Paul, that we should acknowledge the diversity of beliefs in this world but not shrink away from preaching “Christ and him crucified.” Notice Paul also preached to the Athenians about a judgment by Jesus (Acts 17:30-31).  This was evidently not a popular message, because he was mocked for delivering it (verse 32), and only a few believed (verses 33-34).  By today’s post-modern evangelistic standards, Paul’s preaching may well have been a dismal failure.

I firmly believe we must be willing to speak the truth in love without compromise to this generation and not be so preoccupied with failure that we water down the truth.  We must be willing to speak about sin, righteousness and judgment in the name of Jesus Christ as part of our gospel presentation, or we risk preaching a different gospel that is dilutes “the power of God unto salvation.”

No, I wouldn’t limit evangelistic techniques to those specifically mentioned in Scripture, but I will not dispense with the truth that lies behind our evangelism in the name of appearing non-threatening to unbelievers, nor will I go out of my way to offend them by adding to the gospel which is offensive enough on its own.

Mark Driscoll is an example of someone who I think does a good job of being “relevant” to today’s culture without compromising biblical truth.  If you get a chance to hear him sometime or read his blog, it will be well worth it.

Julius, thanks for your thoughts and I look forward to hearing more from you.

Greg

Welcome Julius to 4TG and for sharing your thoughts, even though we disagree.

Julius wrote:

“Is there nothing at all to learn from New Age Spirituality as Christians? I’ve invited a wicca to my world religions class to interview him (yes, a rare him) and learn about his beliefs and values. I’ve found much to learn, and that in ways that I don’t fully understand, God was working in and on his life.”
----------------------------------------------------------

Julius, Wicca is witchcraft. What can God and Belial have in common? Witchcraft is forbidden in no uncertain terms. The only way that God could possibly work in a life of a wiccan is if God was drawing him to Christ for salvation, as in John 6:44. New Age spirtuality is also a form of witchcraft and necromancy as evidenced by Shirley Maclaine’s channeling. God is not a part of that religion.

Stan

Posted anonymously by: Johnny

Honestly I find Mark Driscoll to be anything but inspiring.  http://www.johram.com/2006/11/08/what_a_jerk/

Now I’ve noticed that a lot of people confuse pluralism with relativism.  The notion that we should not only respect but dwell in other traditions does not imply that one believes that there is any sort of parity between alternate claims of truth.

I don’t see Faith House Manhattan as being an experiment in relativism rather it is an Adventist (Samir) dwelling and seeping himself and his work in a place of inter-faith dialog.  An Adventist pluralist project if you will.

Posted anonymously by: Johnny

I’m no fan of Wicca.  I broke up with my ex, who I’d dated for five years after meeting at Newbold, because she decided to lapse from Adventism and take a Wicca course and delve into earth religions.

Wicca is an earth centered neopagan religion and has nothing whatsoever to do with witchcraft.  Wikipedia is our friend folks- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca

IMHO saying that Wicca has something to do with witchcraft is like saying we have something to do with witchcraft because of texts like Saul and the witch of Endor in 1st Samuel 28.  Tenuous at best.

Welcome Johnny to 4TG. We are glad you have joined us. Thanks for pointing out the distinction regarding Wicca and Withchcraft.

Mark Driscoll is a very interesting and controversial figure. He sometimes can be brash in some of the statements that he makes, and he often can use street language to get his points across.

When he has said things he shouldn’t have, he quickly apologizes. There are numerous examples of that on the web.

But what is remarkable about Driscoll, is that God worked through him to build a mega-church in Seattle--an area that is hostile to the gospel, and by using culturally relevant methods, he has been able to build a vivrant congregation preaching classic Reformed Theology. He has been partly responsible for a resurgent interest in Reformation theology.

This is a part of a sermon of Driscoll’s that I posted on another thread; See what you think of it:

A recent issue of Christianity Today has the curious cover of Jesus being crucified and the title “No Substitute for the Substitute.” Inside, Mark Dever (whom I recently had the pleasure of meeting at a theological colloquium hosted by Dr. D. A. Carson at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) writes a theological article titled “Nothing But the Blood” on the nature of the atoning death of Jesus Christ. He argues against the horrendous trend to prefer some secondary aspects of Jesus’ atoning death such as His example or victory over evil while neglecting what John Stott, Leon Morris, and J. I. Packer call the primary and central idea of Jesus putting Himself in our place and suffering our penalty for our sin. This is the growing hot issue among emerging-type evangelicals who see the cross as too bloody, too violent, and too male for itching postmodern ears.

In the fall of 2005, I preached a lengthy series on the accomplishments of Jesus’ crucifixion and came to realize that the cross was as foolish and offensive as ever. We had to call 911 for a woman who passed out during the sermon on blood. We had more than one angry person try and get on the stage to fight me during the propitiation sermon, which resulted in beefing up our security on Sundays and having a police officer on site. And, as usual, the blogosphere had a field day. Anyone interested can listen to the sermons at http://www.MarsHillChurch.org for free, but be warned–you get what you pay for, so don’t complain if you don’t like the free gift.

My fascination with the atoning death of Jesus was sparked by a chapter I wrote for a forthcoming book edited by Dr. Robert Webber called Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches, in which Dan Kimball, Doug Pagitt, John Burke, Karen Ward and I tackle the issues of Trinity, Atonement, and Scripture for Zondervan. As a result I read hundreds of articles and maybe fifty books on the atonement as my mind was captured by the biblical exegesis and historical fights over what Jesus did for us on the cross. The result is a book that I’m working on, tentatively titled Death by Love, that will explore twelve aspects of what Jesus accomplished on the cross with the big idea being substitutionary atonement. I also preached a session at the recent Resurgence Conference in Seattle by the same name that will soon be available for free download on this site.

The following is a simple introduction to the issue:

Nearly 2,000 years ago a poor, homeless, single man in his early thirties was executed by crucifixion like many other common criminals. He never wrote a book, never traveled more than 200 miles from his home, never held a political office, never married or had children, and never ran a company. His name is Jesus Christ and history is divided into the periods before and after his life. Time magazine named him “Man of the Millennium,” and more songs have been sung to, books written about, and artwork painted of him than anyone who has ever lived. Moreover, a few billion people alive today worship Him as their only God and deeply love Him unlike anyone who has ever lived.

Why?

Because Jesus has done what no one else could do: take away their sin by dying on a cross as a substitute in their place. It is the cross of Jesus that is the symbol of the Christian faith and the crux of human history. In explaining Jesus’ death for sin on the cross, theologians use the word atonement. The word literally means “at-one-ment” and explains how Jesus as God and man can alone reconcile sinners to a holy God.

Jesus dying in the place of sinners (also known as Penal Substitution and Substitutionary Atonement) is a frequent theme of Scripture, including the following verses:

Isaiah 53:6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him [Jesus] the iniquity of us all.

John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”

Romans 3:25 God presented Him [Jesus] as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in His blood.

Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates His love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

1 Corinthians 15:3 …Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.

2 Corinthians 5:21 God made Him [Jesus] who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.

Hebrews 2:17 For this reason He [Jesus] had to be made like His brothers in every way, in order that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that He might make atonement for the sins of the people.

Hebrews 9:28 Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and He will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for Him.

1 Peter 2:24 He himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by His wounds you have been healed.

1 John 2:1-2 My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense–Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 4:10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.
Simply, like I tell my little kids, Jesus died on the cross in your place for your sins to save you from sin, Satan, death, and hell.”
----------------------------------------------------------

Driscoll does not dilute the gospel, the way some other emergent, post-modern types are doing.

Stan

“Driscoll does not dilute the gospel, the way some other emergent, post-modern types are doing.”

Stan, if I can say respectfully, this kind of statement permeates about every fundamentalist religion. One can imagine substituting some of the names and getting something like this--

“Our Firm Foundation [an independent, conservative SDA monthly] does not dilute the gospel, the way some other Cheap-Grace types are doing.”

“Larry Kirkpatrick [pastor and webmaster of GreatControversy.org] does not dilute the gospel, the way some other contemporary evangelical types are doing.”

“Ellen White does not dilute the gospel, the way some other Apostate Protestant types are doing.”

I don’t know Driscoll. He may be doing a good work. He may have his propitiation formula right. He may even have “the truth” (where have I heard that before). I don’t know.

But I’d be more impressed with him (and the evangelical world more generally) if he wasn’t so busy being “brash”.

The Truth--the gospel--in Christ’s day was that the Jews were God’s chosen people, whom He promised numerous times through the O.T. prophets He’d deliver from their enemies and restore to their land. But when Jesus came, He didn’t seem interested in any of that. He blew up the whole formula. When his countrymen didn’t dig what he had to say, Paul and the apostles took God’s promises and blessings to “the dogs” (Matthew 15:26-27).

It’s less interesting to me what theology a person claims to hold than how he treats people, especially the most vulnerable in our society. If the truth, if the gospel doesn’t take that into account, I don’t want it. 

And maybe, God will do it again, and take his blessings away from “us"--take away all our precious theories and professions of faith--and extend his blessings to those formerly thought to be “outside"(Matthew 22:8-9; Luke 14:16-24). 

[quote author="Johnny"]
Now I’ve noticed that a lot of people confuse pluralism with relativism.  The notion that we should not only respect but dwell in other traditions does not imply that one believes that there is any sort of parity between alternate claims of truth.

I don’t see Faith House Manhattan as being an experiment in relativism rather it is an Adventist (Samir) dwelling and seeping himself and his work in a place of inter-faith dialog.  An Adventist pluralist project if you will.

Hey Johnny, welcome to 4TG.  I was at Newbold College for a year and would like to talk more about it with you if you’d like–just send me an email:

Thanks for pointing out the fine distinction between relativism and pluralism.  For those who haven’t looked this up or studied it, relativism is the belief that all religions are equally true, while the pluralist will hold most closely to his own truth but will acknowledge that expressions of God can be found in other religions.  The relativist is not interested in building bridges between religions (since they’re all true in their own way), while the pluralist tries to find common ground between several religions that could form a basis for peaceful inter-faith dialogue.

From reading Samir’s introductory materials and based on these definitions, I think he definitely falls into the pluralist camp, since he’s definitely in bridge-building mode.  For society to work and for peace to take hold, bridge-building is an important work.

But from a Christian perspective, we believe that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah, the propitiation for our sins and our redeemer.  The pluralist will at some point will be faced with a decision about what to do with Jesus.  He’s either who he said he was, or he is not.  If Jesus is who he claims to be, our interactions with adherents of non-Christian faiths begins to take on a new level of significance.  Sure, it’s great to build dialogue between groups so that we can more fully understand each other, but if a person’s eternal disposition rests upon whether they have repented of their sin and put their faith in Jesus, bridge-building for the sake of finding “common truth” begins to look a little pale in comparison.

Bridge-building and Christianity are by no means exclusive pursuits.  If bridge-building is being done so that Christ’s name can be magnified and his gospel advanced, I applaud it.  But the bridge built in the name of Christ is guaranteed to be a stumbling block to those who will not submit to the claims he made about himself.  Put simply, there’s just no way to minimize the offense of Jesus as “the way, the truth and the life” (John 14:6) and that those who reject Jesus reject the Father (Luke 10:16, John 5:22-23, John 8:19, John 15:23, 1 John 2:23, 1 John 5:11-12).

Greg

[quote author="glennspring"]"Our Firm Foundation [an independent, conservative SDA monthly] does not dilute the gospel, the way some other Cheap-Grace types are doing.”

“Larry Kirkpatrick [pastor and webmaster of GreatControversy.org] does not dilute the gospel, the way some other contemporary evangelical types are doing.”

“Ellen White does not dilute the gospel, the way some other Apostate Protestant types are doing.”

Glenn,

The hypothetical quotes you posted make the point that perhaps these people and the groups they represent believe in different gospels.  The problem may not be so much about diluting the gospel as getting the gospel right in the first place.  I think this is why the apostle Paul could care less about who preached the gospel, only that it was being preached.

“Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice” (Philippians 1:15-18 ESV)

But Paul also strongly defended the purity of the gospel, since an impure gospel is not good news (Galatians 1:6-9) Glenn, based on Paul’s “brashness” in addressing the Galatian church, I’m certain he would have equally strong words in response to some of those individuals you mentioned above!

Your point about tone, however, is extremely important.  We need to speak the truth in love.  The truth should humble us, not make us militant, and it will not be divorced from the good works you refer to.  Good works are a natural result of belief in the true gospel because of gratitude for what Christ has done on our behalf.

Greg

[quote author="glennspring"]
The Truth--the gospel--in Christ’s day was that the Jews were God’s chosen people, whom He promised numerous times through the O.T. prophets He’d deliver from their enemies and restore to their land. But when Jesus came, He didn’t seem interested in any of that. He blew up the whole formula. When his countrymen didn’t dig what he had to say, Paul and the apostles took God’s promises and blessings to “the dogs” (Matthew 15:26-27).

Glenn, I’m reading through this thread again after a long day of travel and I just re-read this paragraph.  I’m not sure I follow you here.  I’m sure you agree that when we talk about the gospel, we usually mean the “good news” that our sins have been forgiven through the blood of Christ, allowing us to be reconciled to God (2 Corinthians 5:16-21).  This gospel cannot and will not change.  Jesus has completed his work of atonement at the cross, and now sits at the right hand of the Father, waiting for the time that his enemies will be made his footstool (Hebrews 10:12-14).

Perhaps you were describing the covenant between God and Israel, in which case, you described the situation well.  The Israelites failed miserably to live up to their covenant promise with God at Sinai.  If the arrival of Jesus should have been good news (gospel) to anyone, it should have been so for the Israelites.  Many did believe Jesus was the fulfillment of the law and that he was the Messiah (thousands being converted at Pentecost, for instance), but most doggedly pursued their own righteousness by trying harder to live up to the Mosaic law.  They were so obsessed with finding righteousness in their works that they refused to see Jesus when he was standing in front of them, refusing to come to him so that they could have life (John 5:39).

What’s difficult for me personally to understand is how we can have the entire history of God’s redemptive work in Christ laid out before us, living in the full knowledge of the gospel, yet many (myself included for many years) seem so apathetic about it or think that it needs to be improved somehow with a post-modern or “emergent” approach.

Greg