What is Contemplative Christianity?

[sojourner]

I am not referring to rejecting authoritarian claims, but saying that rejecting God's claim as Authority through His Word, opens up the door to others who claim authority and a dangerous authoritarian state or condition.

People misuse the bible all the time to accomplish their own authoritarian means "in the name of God." Hitler used it to commit violence against the Jews. Slavers used it to commit violence against blacks. Politicians used it to commit violence against First Nations people. Imperialist Christians used it to commit violence against all kinds of native peoples.

 

[InChrist]

Again: the operative term here is, "If everyone." Narrowness. Conformity. You insist that everyone conform to your viewpoint, or they're "wrong." Don't you think God created us in diversity for a reason? No one person can reflect all of God. No one group can reflect all of God. but every difference of every person does reflect the great diversity that is God./QUOTE]

So what is wrong with narrowness if it is correct? 2+2=4, doesn’t it? Or are you tolerant enough to say it may equal 3? Or the next time you travel by plane would you be all-inclusive enough to accept a bus driver to fly you to your destination? I doubt it. If there is ONE God, as the scriptures state, why can’t He be narrow about His identity or how humans are to relate to Him? I personally don’t see conformity in the scriptures, except conformity to truth, which is only reasonable. Anything else is nonsense. I also see a huge amount of room for human diversity.

Paul wasn't talking about the scriptures. He was talking about the message of the gospel. Remember: there was no bible when Paul wrote to Thessalonica. There was no NT. There were no gospels. There were only the various Hebrew scrolls.

I will respond to this in a separate post.

Why do you think some Evangelicals formed the Emergent conversation to begin with? Because they felt oppressed by their fundamentalist peers.

Maybe those Emergents should not have been looking to their peers in the first place, but keeping their eyes on Jesus. From my perspective and what I see in the scriptures there is plenty of liberty and freedom in Christ...without abandoning the fundamental truths of the scriptures and the authority of God.

The love that is fostered is based upon justice. Justice is a major driving force in the conversation. If you got that part wrong, then you absolutely do not understand the Emergent Movement At. All. You should give these people a serious read. Go online and see videos of conversations. Attend meetings. Go to an emergent service sometime. Become involved and informed.

It appears to me to be a very blurry, mushy, redefined kind of love and justice which tolerates sin and anything is acceptable, except of course some major doctrines of the Bible. I have read and researched the emergent movement for several years. I really don’t need to experience or participate in emergent services or meeting to know they are of no benefit or wrong, any more than I’d have to try heroin or attempt flying off a cliff to know these are detrimental to health and life. Besides, I was delivered and saved out of the new age by Jesus and the emergent movement is no different., other than some terminology to make it more palatable to Christians.

"Seems." You use an awful lot of "thinks" and "believes" and "seems" in proclaiming your absolutist judgments.

By receiving several infractions in the beginning on this forum I learned that if I didn’t use qualifying words, such as: think, believe, seem, see, etc. I would get another warning or infraction. Therefore, I use them. I’m surprised you get by so often making statements without such qualifiers.

Well... you're wrong. Let me ask you this: Upon what, in your fundamentalist church, does God's authority rest? From where is it propagated? How is it displayed? How do you think the Emergents "reject" that authority?

I think the Emergents reject God’s authority by making themselves their own authority instead.
If you like, rephrase or clarify your first three questions. I’m not sure I understand what you are asking.

 

[InChrist]

People misuse the bible all the time to accomplish their own authoritarian means "in the name of God." Hitler used it to commit violence against the Jews. Slavers used it to commit violence against blacks. Politicians used it to commit violence against First Nations people. Imperialist Christians used it to commit violence against all kinds of native peoples.

Yes, all the more reason to search the scriptures daily and test everything and everyone to see whether their claims are good or evil, from God, Satan, or self.

 

[InChrist]

Who's "self-focused" here? Look at what you've said:
"I consider." "I think." "I believe." This is extremely self-centered. We've said all along that meditation may not be right for you, and that's OK. If this is what you believe and think and consider, then by all means, Don't. Do. It. But don't disparage others' sincere religious experiences and judge them as unworthy of God.

By receiving several infractions in the beginning on this forum I learned that if I didn’t use qualifying words, such as: think, believe, seem, see, etc. I would get another warning or infraction. Therefore, I use them. I’m surprised you get by so often making statements without such qualifiers.

 

[InChrist]

If I showed you a photograph from the 1600's of the Apostle Paul writing his letters directly into a copy of the King Jame's Bible on a desk in front of him, would you then believe he was referring to the Bible the Protestants call the Word of God and his own writings as scripture? Well, would you? What would it take to convince you? What would it take for you to put your faith in the Protestant Bible and be saved?

Is mockery a part of the "love and compassion" you learn through your mystical experiences and connection with the god you encounter?

 

[InChrist]

Some may argue that there was a gradual evolving of thought concerning the NT and only after a long period did these writings come to be regarded as an authoritative source of scripture to the Christian Church, but that does not seem to line up with correct historical reality...
.
When those who were called and inspired by God in the first century wrote, their letters were immediately acknowledged and accepted by throughout the church. They "continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine" (Acts 2:42) and they received those teachings "not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God" (1 Thessalonians 2:13). These writings were received as "Scripture". The word "Scripture" is used about 50 times in the New Testament and always refers to the written record of the will of God. Thus, the word "Scripture" can accurately be applied to the things found in both the Old and New Testaments. It is simply not true that these writings only came to be accepted as scripture along with the OT at a later date because we know that these inspired writings of the first century were circulated among Christians and regarded as scripture and authority for the churches (Col. 4:16 and 1 Thess. 5:27). Paul (writing in about 65 A.D.) quotes Luke's gospel and refers to it as Scripture (see 1 Timothy 5:18 and Luke 10:7). Peter (in 66 A.D.) mentions Paul's writings and calls them Scripture (2 Peter 3:16).

There were several writers who made frequent appeal to the authority of what we now know as the New Testament books within the first 50 years after the apostles. Clement of Rome, in his Epistles to the Corinthians (A.D. 95) makes reference to Matthew, Mark, Hebrews, Romans, 1 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter and Ephesians. The epistles of Ignatius (A.D. 115) and Polycarp (A.D. 130) refer to various New Testament books. Justin Martyr (A.D.100-165) made extensive appeal to the four Gospels and mentions Acts and Revelation.

The title "New Testament" may not have been used until near the end of the second century. But, the inspired writings that make up the New Testament were well known, widely circulated, and regarded as Scripture among Christians of that era.

 

[sojourner]

So what is wrong with narrowness if it is correct? 2+2=4, doesn’t it? Or are you tolerant enough to say it may equal 3? Or the next time you travel by plane would you be all-inclusive enough to accept a bus driver to fly you to your destination?

There's no such thing as "correct" when it comes to spirituality. There is "orthodoxy." There is "what's right." "Correctness" only refers to what can be factually shown. Nothing in spirituality can be factually shown.

If there is ONE God, as the scriptures state, why can’t He be narrow about His identity or how humans are to relate to Him?

Because God chose to 1) create us in diversity and to 2) diversify our language and cultural concepts. Therefore, God is available in many different ways.

I personally don’t see conformity in the scriptures, except conformity to truth, which is only reasonable.

Yet, you seem to want everyone to conform to your ideas about God. Why is that, when you "follow the bible" and "don't see conformity in the scriptures?"

I also see a huge amount of room for human diversity.

Yet, you don't seem to tolerate it where religious expression is concerned. Why is that?

Maybe those Emergents should not have been looking to their peers in the first place, but keeping their eyes on Jesus.

A teacher may be known by his students, yes? We, as disciples, make Jesus known to the world, yes? Why, then, would people who profess in no uncertain terms, to be "correct" in their understanding of Jesus, choose to act so out-of-character that they drive others away from Jesus?

From my perspective and what I see in the scriptures there is plenty of liberty and freedom in Christ...without abandoning the fundamental truths of the scriptures and the authority of God.

Those fundamentals are love, mercy, forbearance, tolerance, compassion, hospitality, inclusion, kindness. That's precisely what the Emergent conversation undertakes to embody.

It appears to me to be a very blurry, mushy, redefined kind of love and justice which tolerates sin and anything is acceptable, except of course some major doctrines of the Bible.

Sin is "tolerated" only to the extent that it is recognized as a real sickness that needs to be realistically addressed -- in a loving, not judgmental way.

I have read and researched the emergent movement for several years.

Apparently, those were wasted years that you'll never get back, seeing how you've managed to misrepresent the Emergent movement here.

I was delivered and saved out of the new age by Jesus and the emergent movement is no different., other than some terminology to make it more palatable to Christians.

Case in point. The Emergent conversation is no more "New Age" than is Wesley's Methodism.

By receiving several infractions in the beginning on this forum I learned that if I didn’t use qualifying words, such as: think, believe, seem, see, etc. I would get another warning or infraction. Therefore, I use them. I’m surprised you get by so often making statements without such qualifiers.

To discuss details of forum acts of reprimand violates forum rules. That's my point, and it should illuminate the difference between your arguments and mine: You present beliefs, viewpoints, and perspectives as objective fact, when in fact, they are not. I try real hard not to do that. You're free, of course, to believe whatever you wish. But, like a Famous, Kentucky County Clerk, you're not free to foist those beliefs on others, as if they are fact, and then stand in judgment of others for not holding the same beliefs.
Your beliefs are neither universal nor absolute.

I think the Emergents reject God’s authority by making themselves their own authority instead.

Can you be more detailed and specific about the ways in which you think they do that? because, in all my intimate dealings with the Emergent conversation, I've never perceived that Emergents do what you accuse them of doing. They generally don't hold the bible up as "infallible" or the "words of God." They don't place any particular authority on the texts that are incongruent with the fundamental principles of justice, peace, love, harmony, mercy, forbearance, welcome, inclusion, or kindness. Just as no other type of Christian does. For example, no reasonable Christian places authority on the texts that advocate racism, slavery, misogyny, or discrimination.

If you like, rephrase or clarify your first three questions. I’m not sure I understand what you are asking.

What is the ground of God's authority? How is that authority distributed to the world? How is that authority displayed?

 

[sojourner]

Yes, all the more reason to search the scriptures daily and test everything and everyone to see whether their claims are good or evil, from God, Satan, or self.

One doesn't have to "search the scriptures" in order to see with great clarity that making Rosa parks sit in the back of the bus was dehumanizing and wrong, or to see that committing genocide is violent and wrong, or that subjugating others based on race, nationality, sex, or orientation is dehumanizing and wrong.

 

[sojourner]

Is mockery a part of the "love and compassion" you learn through your mystical experiences and connection with the god you encounter?

Is hubris part of the "biblical love" you purport to "search out daily" and emulate?

 

[sojourner]

Some may argue that there was a gradual evolving of thought concerning the NT and only after a long period did these writings come to be regarded as an authoritative source of scripture to the Christian Church, but that does not seem to line up with correct historical reality...

It doesn't seem to line up with your perspective on said history...

When those who were called and inspired by God in the first century wrote, their letters were immediately acknowledged and accepted by throughout the church.

Not as scripture. Why do you think the canon wasn't set until around 450 C.E.?

They "continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine" (Acts 2:42) and they received those teachings "not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God" (1 Thessalonians 2:13). These writings were received as "Scripture".

This is an opinion that simply is not borne out by the historic record. They received them as "authoritative," much as today's papal statements and other episcopal rulings are regarded as "authoritative," but not "scripture."

The word "Scripture" is used about 50 times in the New Testament and always refers to the written record of the will of God.

...According to what was regarded as "scripture," namely, the Hebrew texts.

Thus, the word "Scripture" can accurately be applied to the things found in both the Old and New Testaments.

Only after the texts have been canonized and received as such.

It is simply not true that these writings only came to be accepted as scripture along with the OT at a later date because we know that these inspired writings of the first century were circulated among Christians and regarded as scripture and authority for the churches (Col. 4:16 and 1 Thess. 5:27). Paul (writing in about 65 A.D.) quotes Luke's gospel and refers to it as Scripture (see 1 Timothy 5:18 and Luke 10:7). Peter (in 66 A.D.) mentions Paul's writings and calls them Scripture (2 Peter 3:16).

Two huge mistakes here. 1) 1 Tim and Lk quote earlier wisdom. 2) the term "scripture," as translated in the bible, simply means "writing." It doesn't carry the same, specific meaning of "canonized writing" that we use today.

There were several writers who made frequent appeal to the authority of what we now know as the New Testament books within the first 50 years after the apostles. Clement of Rome, in his Epistles to the Corinthians (A.D. 95) makes reference to Matthew, Mark, Hebrews, Romans, 1 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter and Ephesians. The epistles of Ignatius (A.D. 115) and Polycarp (A.D. 130) refer to various New Testament books. Justin Martyr (A.D.100-165) made extensive appeal to the four Gospels and mentions Acts and Revelation.

Well, sure! The writings were known and attributed by then. But at the time of writing, no NT text refers to itself as "canon scripture." Nor do any of them refer to any other NT text as "canon scripture." This is just as disingenuous as your take on the Emergent movement.

The title "New Testament" may not have been used until near the end of the second century. But, the inspired writings that make up the New Testament were well known, widely circulated, and regarded as Scripture among Christians of that era.

But not among the writers of those documents.

 

[Windwalker]

I am not referring to rejecting authoritarian claims, but saying that rejecting God's claim as Authority through His Word, opens up the door to others who claim authority and a dangerous authoritarian state or condition.

This is absurd. I don't look for others to tell me Answers with a capital A. That's what you do, and therefore you would be prone to accept someone who told you they had them, whereas I would reject anyone claiming that. So no, I'm not in danger. You are.

 

[Windwalker]

Is mockery a part of the "love and compassion" you learn through your mystical experiences and connection with the god you encounter?

Is mocking and rejecting my faith by saying it "the god" I encounter, with a small g your idea of being Christian? Apparently so. "Judge other's faith in my stead," said Jesus nowhere.

 

[Windwalker]

Some may argue that there was a gradual evolving of thought concerning the NT and only after a long period did these writings come to be regarded as an authoritative source of scripture to the Christian Church, but that does not seem to line up with correct historical reality...

Yes, in fact, it does line up quite accurately.

When those who were called and inspired by God in the first century wrote, their letters were immediately acknowledged and accepted by throughout the church. They "continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine" (Acts 2:42) and they received those teachings "not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God" (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

Who said they were "writings"? They were "teachings" that they received, not "scriptures" If you use these two verses to support they had the NT, bear in mind the only writings they could possibly include would be Matthew, Mark, and a number of Paul's letters. That's it. That would have excluded Luke/Acts, John, Revelation, and so forth. No, these verses do not support that they had a NT they were using.

BTW, there were a lot of others texts that were immediately acknowledged and used in the church too, that hit the editors floor in the 3rd Century. So the fact it was used was not a criteria for inclusion. Fact.

These writings were received as "Scripture".

Will you support this with a source of authority? Did Paul ever say, "I am writing scripture?" Did he ever say, "You have the scriptures I wrote for you", to any of the churches? No?

The word "Scripture" is used about 50 times in the New Testament and always refers to the written record of the will of God.

It refers to the OT books, when not later 2nd century pseudepigraphal texts that got added into the Bible as "scripture".

Thus, the word "Scripture" can accurately be applied to the things found in both the Old and New Testaments.

You can include my writings too as scripture then when I speak of my experience of God and understanding what His will is, if the criteria for scripture is talking about the will of God.

It is simply not true that these writings only came to be accepted as scripture along with the OT at a later date because we know that these inspired writings of the first century were circulated among Christians and regarded as scripture and authority for the churches (Col. 4:16 and 1 Thess. 5:27). Paul (writing in about 65 A.D.) quotes Luke's gospel and refers to it as Scripture (see 1 Timothy 5:18 and Luke 10:7). Peter (in 66 A.D.) mentions Paul's writings and calls them Scripture (2 Peter 3:16).

The Apostle Peter wrote neither of the epistles in his name, especially 2 Peter. Critical scholars, using modern methods of analysis, date that epistle somewhere between 100-160 AD. So yes, a pseudepigraphal work of the 2nd century, would speak of Paul's writings as authoritative, since 2 Pe. is written in the Pauline succession. And if Paul considered his teachings as "authoritative", that does not mean he viewed his letters as "scripture", comparable to the Torah. He was a church-establisher, and his authority as a leader was what he was arguing for. As far as 1 Timothy, again, pseudepigraphal, not written by Paul, but someone of the 2nd century. So anything they say about "scripture" has to be taken with a view from a later period looking back on early Christian formation, as competing against other early Christianities with their particular views which differed from the other schools of thought. As far as Luke's gospel reference, it's quoting Deuteronomy 25:4, which last I checked is considered a book in the OT, unless someone moved it to the NT.

But here's another point. They also considered other writings which got tossed onto the editors floor in the 3rd century, to be useful in services and considered integral to Christian practice in early church. So much for "preserving the word". Someone much later decided via committee and politics, what they felt should and shouldn't be included, excluded the actual use of actual Christian churches who viewed those texts as inspired too! These men decided if it fit their idea of Christianity or not. That has NOTHING to do with divine inspiration, but politics and administration. No, it's not this wonderful rosey mythology you have imagined was involved in "preserving the word". That's a myth.

Now, of course you can choose to ignore modern scholarship in favor of your beliefs, but that's nothing that will convince others who accept modern scholarship. It's like denying evolution or the age of the earth to rational modern man, or that the earth is a flat disk with ice walls to keep us from falling off. But at the least you can see we in fact have an actual basis for our points of view, and how they inform our faith, right? That we think of it in different terms, that include modern rational and empirical points of view and we integrate faith with it, does not give you license to witch-hunt others over things outside your wheelhouse. It only makes you look bad, and says nothing favorable about how you see others with different points of view, as a Christian.

There were several writers who made frequent appeal to the authority of what we now know as the New Testament books within the first 50 years after the apostles. Clement of Rome, in his Epistles to the Corinthians (A.D. 95) makes reference to Matthew, Mark, Hebrews, Romans, 1 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter and Ephesians. The epistles of Ignatius (A.D. 115) and Polycarp (A.D. 130) refer to various New Testament books. Justin Martyr (A.D.100-165) made extensive appeal to the four Gospels and mentions Acts and Revelation.

Revelation barely made it in the choices of what to keep, and was actively opposed by many prominent religious leaders of the time. A real pity that one didn't hit the dustbin, consider how it's created the sorts of "make it say anything you want against any opponent you have" book throughout the ages. It's a really magnet for the conspiracy theory types too, I'll add.

The title "New Testament" may not have been used until near the end of the second century. But, the inspired writings that make up the New Testament were well known, widely circulated, and regarded as Scripture among Christians of that era.

As were many other book widely circulated and used and considered scripture too. Where are they? Oh, that's right, they were ordered burned! But thankfully many were preserved and rediscovered in the last century, giving the world a look at the real world of early Christianities, the real world behind the layers of later myth superimposed upon it.

Again, these are things you learn when you expose yourself to modern scholarship - with an open mind, as opposed to simply trying to fault-find, like this whole irrational BS about meditation opening to you Satan.

 

[InChrist]

There's no such thing as "correct" when it comes to spirituality. There is "orthodoxy." There is "what's right." "Correctness" only refers to what can be factually shown. Nothing in spirituality can be factually shown.

Who determines there is no such thing as “correct’” when it comes to spirituality? I believe God has revealed the facts concerning true spirituality which we in our finite state, as humans, otherwise would be unable to know. But now we have His word so we can know what is ‘correct”.

Because God chose to 1) create us in diversity and to 2) diversify our language and cultural concepts. Therefore, God is available in many different ways.

Well, I don't think the diversIty of language and culture testifies that God is available in many ways, although He is available to everyone whatever their language or culture. If you read and believe the Bible it is revealed that God dispersed humanity for their sinful pride and rebellion... http://www.ldolphin.org/babel.html

Yet, you seem to want everyone to conform to your ideas about God. Why is that, when you "follow the bible" and "don't see conformity in the scriptures?"

No, I don’t want everyone to conform to my ideas. I am NOT God. It does make sense to me, though, that it would be beneficial for everyone to trust and follow the Creator God who loves and has the best interest of everyone in mind.

Yet, you don't seem to tolerate it where religious expression is concerned. Why is that?

I think there is plenty of room within biblical Christianity for a variety of expression and I certainly do tolerate religious freedom of anyone, Christian or otherwise. I am simply expressing my view and believe concerning God and the Bible. I am not capable and do not desire to force anyone to think as I do, nor do I believe force ever accomplishes real belief anyway.

A teacher may be known by his students, yes? We, as disciples, make Jesus known to the world, yes? Why, then, would people who profess in no uncertain terms, to be "correct" in their understanding of Jesus, choose to act so out-of-character that they drive others away from Jesus?

I think you are generalizing. Many throughout history who have loved Jesus and stayed true to His word have shown tremendous love and drawn others to Jesus by being a light for Him.

Those fundamentals are love, mercy, forbearance, tolerance, compassion, hospitality, inclusion, kindness. That's precisely what the Emergent conversation undertakes to embody.

I think you are sincere and I’m sure many in the emergent movement are, also. The things you have listed are fruits of the Spirit which flow through the life of one who has placed their faith in Christ as their Savior from sin.This fundamental, historic doctrine of the atonement of Jesus appears to be one that Emergents are discarding.

Sin is "tolerated" only to the extent that it is recognized as a real sickness that needs to be realistically addressed -- in a loving, not judgmental way.

Bible believing Christians can also address sin with a non-judgmental attitude and love toward the one sinning. That does not mean the sin is okay and accepted.

Can you be more detailed and specific about the ways in which you think they do that? because, in all my intimate dealings with the Emergent conversation, I've never perceived that Emergents do what you accuse them of doing. They generally don't hold the bible up as "infallible" or the "words of God."

That is what I mean, since ... They generally don't hold the bible up as "infallible" or the "words of God." ...the outcome is that they put themselves in the supreme place of authority to determine what is true or false, right or wrong.

What is the ground of God's authority? How is that authority distributed to the world? How is that authority displayed?

God Himself is the ground of His authority. His authority is already over the world, but further awareness of it is spread throughout the world as the biblical gospel is shared, believed and people trust their lives to Him. His authority is displayed as believers live their lives in God’s will instead of self will and show love for others.

 

[InChrist]

One doesn't have to "search the scriptures" in order to see with great clarity that making Rosa parks sit in the back of the bus was dehumanizing and wrong, or to see that committing genocide is violent and wrong, or that subjugating others based on race, nationality, sex, or orientation is dehumanizing and wrong.

True, some things we just know are wrong due to our God-given conscience. I was referring to testing by the scriptures leaders who rise up claiming they should be followed.

 

[InChrist]

Is hubris part of the "biblical love" you purport to "search out daily" and emulate?

Christian humility is to simply accept whatever God has revealed in His Word. Following God’s Word wherever it leads, neither going beyond it nor stopping short of it is real humility. It is not humble to be in doubt or hesitant where God has been clear and plain, nor is it loving to God or those He has in our lives.


Therefore do not cast away your confidence, which has great reward. Hebrews 10:35

...but exhort one another daily, while it is called “Today,” lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end, 15 while it is said: “Today, if you will hear His voice,
Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.” Hebrews 3:13-15

 

[InChrist]

But not among the writers of those documents.

Peter clearly considered the writings of Paul to be scripture, the same as the rest of the scriptures of the OT...
and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. 2 Peter 3:15-16

 

[InChrist]

This is absurd. I don't look for others to tell me Answers with a capital A. That's what you do, and therefore you would be prone to accept someone who told you they had them, whereas I would reject anyone claiming that. So no, I'm not in danger. You are.

I hope you don't forget these words, your words. When the time comes, that you hear someone claiming to have the Answers with a capital A for the chaos of this world and offering their solutions and when you see just about everyone falling into line behind this leader with the Answers, I sincerely hope and pray you remember your words..."I would reject anyone claiming that".

 

[InChrist]

Is mocking and rejecting my faith by saying it "the god" I encounter, with a small g your idea of being Christian? Apparently so. "Judge other's faith in my stead," said Jesus nowhere.

I am not mocking you. I just cannot agree that the god you connect with through mysticism is the Creator God. Jesus' words concerning judgment referred to being hypocritical by judging others for their sin if we are also involved in sinful behavior. This is wrong. He was not saying we are not to judge between true and false or right and wrong. In the same passage where He spoke of this He proceeds to warn of false teachers and wolves in sheep's clothing. So there is wrong type of judgment and there are times we are to judge and determine truth from deception.

 

[Windwalker]

That is what I mean, since ... They generally don't hold the bible up as "infallible" or the "words of God." ...the outcome is that they put themselves in the supreme place of authority to determine what is true or false, right or wrong.

This here expresses your core confusion which leads to your wrong assumptions and false accusations. The outcome is NOT that they put themselves in the place of supreme authority. You have this completely wrong. If anything, hoping to show you the error of your thinking is central to your errors about others. Let me make an attempt to open your eyes on this one.

For you, because you see the Bible as Absolute Authority outside yourself you put your trust and faith in, to reject that point of view, to you, means you now place Supreme Authority in yourself. This is not how others think about it, nor act upon it. It's how you think, and how you project from yourself what others would do, because that what YOU would do. This is a grave error in your thinking.

Here's the reality of it for others like those in this emergent movement (which through this thread I have become quite interested in as they sound quite mature in their faith from what I've read so far). We don't assume even our own voices and thoughts and ideas are Absolute. We reject the whole notion of absolute truth being something anyone, including ourselves, can know or lay claim to! We don't reject the Bible as Absolute Authority, and then turn around and find another to replace it with! This is the core problem in your understanding how others do not all think as you do. Just because you can't fathom how someone can think without having absolute authorities to put their faith in to help them live their lives, does not mean it is not possible for others to do. I guarantee it is possible. I live this way.

This error in your thinking is what is responsible for you assuming that because we don't accept the Bible in the way you do, as the literal dictation of God's will, that we are therefore susceptible to fascism. Hearing this from my perspective is absurd because I don't believe anyone can make that claim, therefore I would reject them too! But it does show without your belief in the modern doctrine of Biblical Infallibility, that you feel you would be. Therefore, you project that on to others, unaware that others don't think like you. You assume everyone thinks like you, and therefore unless they align their thinking as you have yours in the way you do, they will fall. Do you see the error in this? I sincerely hope so, as this would be the beginning of a true dialog with you.