 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Lyndon Unger Member Joined Mar 12, 2004 48 posts Location: Burbank, California |
 Q and Eh... |
Posted Sep 23, 2009; 12:45 pm |
|
Yeah, I definitely hear you on the "typical American" idea. I hated MacArthur when I first encountered him, and I pretty much said exactly the same thing. There's a lot of volume with American preachers, at least compared with Canadian preachers...though I know quite a few Russian pastors that make most Yanks look quiet!
I haven't heard much Bruxy Cavey; I'll have to check him out.
I agree that our cultural conditioning plays into what we consider 'authoritative', but I'd also say, having spent many years involved with both Canadian Pentecostals and Southern Baptists, that Mennonites also have "theological conditioning" coming into play as well. On the whole, I'd suggest that how we listen to preaching, and what we hear, happens within the pasture of our own theological understanding and expectations.
I guess Driscoll claims to be a Calvinist, and is complimentarian, seems to be somewhat theological and is definitely loud. I can understand why he would look like he's in the same camp as MacArthur, Piper, Dever, Mohler, etc. I guess it depends on your categories.
As for Seminary, I'm a Briercrest grad who started seminary there, and then transferred to The Masters Seminary in California; i.e. John MacArthur is the chancellor here, though he's not really involved much. Richard Mayhue is the president and Irvin Busenitz is the academic dean. I also attend Grace Community Church and am on staff here, at least while in school. I have 4 credits left in my MDiv. and plan to return to Canada sometime this summer. I'm searching for an MB church in which to serve, but we both know the MB Conference, and likely 99% of MB churches, won't touch a fella like me...
I guess that means that I'll likely be involved with Baptist circles (BGC maybe), or maybe Evangelical Free circles? I'm not sure. I'm searching for MB church options though, and I'm in contact with provincial conferences in Western Canada.
I also am an Anabaptist Jesus follower, or maybe a Biblically driven Christian if we're being more specific. I'm a Mennonite at heart, and I always will be. I was raised in the MB church and have a love for true reformational anabaptist theology; not the rhetoric that has infiltrated our church in the last several decades and passed off as 'biblical theology'.
I don't like hyphens either. To Mormons, Atheists, Satanists, the Buddhists on the corner (I believe the largest Buddhist temple on the West Coast is 2 blocks east of Grace Community Church), and all other groups, I simply refer to myself as a Christian.
Anyway, I've gotta get off the board again...this place is a black hole for my time! God bless! |
|
|
|
| Neto Member Joined Feb 2, 2005 254 posts Location: Holmes County, Ohio |
| |
Posted Sep 23, 2009; 5:36 pm |
|
I must be out of the evangelical loop more than I thought. (Hooray!) I’ve not even heard most of these names…. The leadership of our congregation, and many of the rest of us, do feel that the major threat to our hold of the truth is not from “the world”, but from Evangelicals – radio preachers, specifically (i.e., worldly christians). A lot of our people listen to evangelical radio programs a lot, and of course it begins to influence their beliefs. I do enjoy listening to Ravi Zacharias occasionally, partly for the accent, and mainly for his emphasis on simple obedience. Where do you put him? (I haven’t heard enough of his sermons to know where he comes down on systematic theology – probably ascribes to it, don’t know – and Calvinism? Don’t know about that, either.)
| westcoast frame of mind wrote: | | … authors I don't like (McArthur). |
| Lyndon Unger wrote: | | … I laughed out loud when you said you don't like MacArthur. I haven't met many Mennonites that do... |
| westcoast frame of mind wrote: | | reasons for avoiding McArthur quickly off the top of my head: I'm not a Calvinist and don't focus on systematic theology, I'm am on the other side of the gender issue, I've listened to bits / pieces of his sermons - find the authoratative style less than appealing. BTW, I do think its important to get info from 'the other side' - I regularily read CBMW articles, listen to Driscoll and some Southern Baptist blog sites. |
I don’t go for systematic theology, either, but which side of the “gender issue” is the “other side”?
| Sudsy wrote: | | … I enjoy … Piper and for a Canadian preacher I prefer Charles Price from the Peoples church in Toronto. I also enjoy watching Dr. Michael Youssef …. For women preachers I prefer Joyce Myers …. |
I HAVE heard of Piper, but some of his ideas really sound wrong headed to me, like “Christian Hedonism” – that is him, right? Haven’t ever heard of these others, and women preachers - maybe I’m on the “other side” of this gender thingie….
| Lyndon Unger wrote: | People don't like his [MacArthur ‘s] theology or his authoritative style.
Also, I get a lot of my information from the "other side" on many issues, or at least I'm actively aware of what's going on in other camps. There's a continual concept that aggressively conservative people have their heads in the sand, but I've only found argument for that in psuedo-Christian groups like Ruckmanites (certain straing of KJV onlyists) or Word-of-Faith teachers (like Benny Hinn or Creflo Dollar). |
Are “aggressive conservatives” like what’s-his-name, the conceited conservative on talk radio? Or are they the ones who murder abortionists?
We do have a lot of KJV nuts (I mean people  ) in our congregation, bless their hearts….
| Lyndon Unger wrote: | | I've encountered a lot of Driscoll (50+ sermons and 3+ books) and he's on the fringe, at best. |
Driscoll – sounds vaguely familiar….
| westcoast frame of mind wrote: | My reaction to McArthur may be a Canadian thing: he comes off to my ear as loud / bombastic. Your typical loud American. Regarding authoritative preaching – I’ve listened to some of Bruxy Cavey (Meeting House, Toronto) podcast’s sermons and find his style ‘authoritative.’ …. Perhaps what passes as ‘authoritative’ in one country changes when people from another country hear the same thing. I tend to think our cultural perspectives (perhaps personalities) are rapped up in our views of what passes as 'authoritative preaching'.
| Quote: | | … what "camp" would you place yourself in? |
I was probably thinking of Calvinist, gender debate and systematics – which puts me on the other side of McArthur/Driscoll – i also see some similarities in their verbal styles. |
Ah, Calvin, this guy I’ve heard of…. |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2833 posts |
| |
Posted Sep 23, 2009; 6:12 pm |
|
| Quote: | | I HAVE heard of Piper, but some of his ideas really sound wrong headed to me, like “Christian Hedonism” – that is him, right? |
Yep. Piper believes the chief end of man is 'to glorify God by enjoying Him forever'. Jonathan Edwards and C.S. Lewis are said to have a similar belief. However, Piper also says this does not mean that our happiness is the highest good. Put another way 'God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him.' I think this links well with our thread on shining our lights to bring glory to God. I can see where a believer totally satisfied in God would be quite a shining light.
| Quote: | | I do enjoy listening to Ravi Zacharias occasionally, partly for the accent, and mainly for his emphasis on simple obedience. Where do you put him? |
I enjoy him also. He comes from a Christian and Missionary Alliance background, like our MB pastor. He is quite evangelistic and is especially good with answering questions from intellectuals. |
|
|
|
| Neto Member Joined Feb 2, 2005 254 posts Location: Holmes County, Ohio |
| |
Posted Sep 23, 2009; 7:44 pm |
|
| Sudsy wrote: | | I enjoy [Ravi Zacharias] also. He comes from a Christian and Missionary Alliance background, like our MB pastor. He is quite evangelistic and is especially good with answering questions from intellectuals. |
Thnaks for that info! I didn't know he was C&MA! I went to C&MA Bible college - graduated there. I also have a 'cousin-uncle' (my Dad's cousin) who was a C&MA minister, then missionary, then minister - now retired. I have always said that if I were not Mennonite, I'd want to be C&MA. The old hymns by A. B Simpson were really hard to sing, but packed with doctrine. I also share their belief in healing in the atonement, and appreciated their balance on the gifts of the Spirit. They (the school) took me in when about no one else would, as I'd been expelled from a 'fundamentalist' school for 'doctrinal error'. |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| Bruxy Cavey |
Posted Sep 23, 2009; 8:25 pm |
|
Lyndon.
Cavey leads an multi-site church - it's anabaptist egalitarian - I quite like it 
He's got a book out called 'the end of religion'
Thanks for your bio - i truly wish you well and God's blessings to you and yours.
thanks for showing up here on the Forum again.
u mention u are planning to return to Canada sometime this summer - and if u think its still summer you've been in California too long 
although, we are in the midst of a heat wave up here the last few days.
good for you to get in touch with the Conference leadership types.
you've probably heard us whining on this Forum about the Calvinistic impact up here in BC so there could well be some churches you'd be quite at home in.
the challenge for us MB's is to keep loving one another - even when we think the other guy is totally out to lunch
blessings and please stay in touch. |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| Neto - sides on the gender issue |
Posted Sep 23, 2009; 8:35 pm |
|
there are several terms to show which team you play on.
the current terms are: complementarian and egalitarian.
and things get more confusing - there are soft comps and hard comps and various flavours inbetween.
comps - go for a more restrictive understanding of gender roles - for example: no woman head pastors - husband leads the family
egals - are more open - woman pastors - in the family team leadership with no one calling the final shots. and of course there are variations within egals.
both teams have a different hermenutical approach
two organizations should give you a good overview:
Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood http://www.cbmw.org/
Christians for Biblical Equality http://www.cbeinternational.org/ |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| this is now an official bunny trail thread |
Posted Sep 23, 2009; 8:36 pm |
|
if we develop anything like a cohesive topic - let me know and we can start a new thread.
i think someday it would be fun (and good) to talk about 'authoratative preaching' |
|
|
|
| Lyndon Unger Member Joined Mar 12, 2004 48 posts Location: Burbank, California |
| Attempts to Clarify... |
Posted Sep 23, 2009; 8:43 pm |
|
On supper break at work, and I get suckered into another post. I've gotta stop looking on here!
Neto said:
| Quote: | | I don’t go for systematic theology, either, but which side of the “gender issue” is the “other side”? |
If you know the two camps (Egalitarian and Complimentarian), then the "other side" is whatever side you aren't on.
If you don't know the two camps, the Egalitarian camp tends towards upholding complete equality between the sexes that extends to an equality of roles and offices within the home and the church (i.e. women can officially teach men as pastors/senior pastors) and the Complimentarian camp tends to uphold equality between the sexes in salvation, but recognizes divinely ordained gender-roles and offices within the home and the church (i.e. women cannot officially teach men as pastors/senior pastors).
Neto said:
| Quote: | | Are “aggressive conservatives” like what’s-his-name, the conceited conservative on talk radio? Or are they the ones who murder abortionists? |
When I use the phrase "aggressive conservatives", I'm basically speaking about those who would be theologically conservative and convicted; people who have a 'high' view of scripture that recognizes the historical and divinely revealed truth, divine power, singular message and lack of confusion in the original message of the Bible (not the interpreters of the Bible), in both its individual passages and totality, and labor intensively to both rightly interpret that original message, instruct the church in that message and take that message to the culture at large.
Aggressive Conservatives are people who think the Bible has a discernible message, work hard to figure it out, and are convicted by the Bible to both preach the entire message of scripture and reach the lost.
Don't know if that helps any, but that's my two cents for you, Neto. |
|
|
|
| Neto Member Joined Feb 2, 2005 254 posts Location: Holmes County, Ohio |
| Re: Attempts to Clarify... |
Posted Sep 24, 2009; 5:41 am |
|
| westcoast frame of mind wrote: | there are several terms to show which team you play on.
the current terms are: complementarian and egalitarian.
and things get more confusing - there are soft comps and hard comps and various flavours inbetween.
comps - go for a more restrictive understanding of gender roles - for example: no woman head pastors - husband leads the family
egals - are more open - woman pastors - in the family team leadership with no one calling the final shots. and of course there are variations within egals.
both teams have a different hermenutical approach |
| Lyndon Unger wrote: | If you know the two camps (Egalitarian and Complimentarian), then the "other side" is whatever side you aren't on.
If you don't know the two camps, the Egalitarian camp tends towards upholding complete equality between the sexes that extends to an equality of roles and offices within the home and the church (i.e. women can officially teach men as pastors/senior pastors) and the Complimentarian camp tends to uphold equality between the sexes in salvation, but recognizes divinely ordained gender-roles and offices within the home and the church (i.e. women cannot officially teach men as pastors/senior pastors). |
Thanks to both of you for the clarification. I suspect that I am over on the other side from where both of you would place yourselves, but appreciate the way in which you both presented the two sides of the issue w/o slamming one or the other. I fall in the “Complementarian Camp”, though I’d never heard the term (but it does make obvious sense). And it is not just “throwing out a bone” to say that I appreciate the input I receive from my wife – I very much value and depend on her counsel. (And not just her, either. If a sister in the congregation who I know is in no way trying to take a leadership position speaks testimony in worship meeting, I believe the brothers can gain much from her words. I doubt if this will make much sense to the “other side”, and it’ll maybe sound condescending, but there it is.) |
|
|
|
| Neto Member Joined Feb 2, 2005 254 posts Location: Holmes County, Ohio |
| |
Posted Sep 24, 2009; 6:18 am |
|
| Lyndon Unger wrote: | Neto said:
| Quote: | | Are “aggressive conservatives” like what’s-his-name, the conceited conservative on talk radio? Or are they the ones who murder abortionists? |
When I use the phrase "aggressive conservatives", I'm basically speaking about those who would be theologically conservative and convicted; people who have a 'high' view of scripture that recognizes the historical and divinely revealed truth, divine power, singular message and lack of confusion in the original message of the Bible (not the interpreters of the Bible), in both its individual passages and totality, and labor intensively to both rightly interpret that original message, instruct the church in that message and take that message to the culture at large.
Aggressive Conservatives are people who think the Bible has a discernible message, work hard to figure it out, and are convicted by the Bible to both preach the entire message of scripture and reach the lost. |
I did know that neither of my “suggestions” was what you were referring to – just was keying off of the “aggressive” part. I understand now that you mean ‘having an aggressive response to one’s beliefs’. ‘Aggression’ is just such a mixed up thing now, with some who are trying to force their countries and everyone else to live by their understanding of morality, etc. Like refusing to accept coins which do not have the words ‘in God we trust’ on them, and mixing political views with faith. (I do believe that a true faith will inform our responses to political issues, but I’m getting way off topic here, because I do not believe in political activism as a believer. As if this discussion has any particular topic. )
I definitely share that view of Truth in the scripture, but the word “conservative” does mean different things to different people. Like when I was growing up in the MB church, we considered ourselves to be conservative theologically, but that use seems to have been informed by dispensational, or perhaps evangelical, theology. So people like I am now would be considered ‘liberal’, because we do not hold to the pre-trib view, we do not practice immersion baptism, we don’t demand that a person remember the exact day & time of conversion (recognizing that conversion can sometimes be a process, rather than a strictly point-in-time event), and so on. The people in my faith community here use the same terms (‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’), but they are applied in reverse! We are ‘conservatives’ because we follow the guidelines given in scripture that others (the ‘liberals’) regard as historical or cultural issues. I’m not trying to be provocative here, just to show how terms mean different things to different people. (I may have mentioned this before in another post, but when I was in Bible College – many years ago – a woman I worked with in a factory job once asked me if I was a ‘born-again christian’. For some reason I asked her what she meant by that, and she proceeded to give me long and detailed ‘definitions’ of what several different terms meant. A “Christian’ is someone who grew up in the church, and never left. A ‘born-again Christian’ is someone who grew up in the church, left, then came back again. And then there was a 3rd term, which I unfortunately cannot remember, which was a person who did not grow up in the church, and was later converted. Maybe the term was ‘saved’, or ‘believer’. There were a couple of others listening to the conversation, and they all agreed and contributed to the definitions….) |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2833 posts |
| |
Posted Sep 24, 2009; 12:17 pm |
|
| Quote: | | A “Christian’ is someone who grew up in the church, and never left. A ‘born-again Christian’ is someone who grew up in the church, left, then came back again. And then there was a 3rd term, which I unfortunately cannot remember, which was a person who did not grow up in the church, and was later converted. Maybe the term was ‘saved’, or ‘believer’. |
I found this amusing but also sad that the basic terms in Christianity are not commonly understood. 'Growing up in a church' does not make anyone a 'Christian'. One has to become part of what scripture calls 'the church'. 'Joining a church' is not the same as 'joining the church'. It is too bad we do not have well defined and accepted terms as it really can confuse people even further. We have touched on this problem in previous threads and I am always surprised at the variety of understandings on various terms. I guess in my upbringing most of these were commonly understood in the church I grew up in. |
|
|
|
| Neto Member Joined Feb 2, 2005 254 posts Location: Holmes County, Ohio |
| |
Posted Sep 24, 2009; 4:09 pm |
|
| Sudsy wrote: | | It is too bad we do not have well defined and accepted terms as it really can confuse people even further. We have touched on this problem in previous threads and I am always surprised at the variety of understandings on various terms. I guess in my upbringing most of these were commonly understood in the church I grew up in. |
I just try to always remember to ask how the other person defines a term before throwing it around, and the resulting discussion can sometimes bring about a greater depth of conversation. (Maybe especially in cases like the one I mentioned, where the other person was a member of a certain church tradition, one which we would tend to think of as "dead".) I think that we Christians tend to use "in house" terminology too much when talking to people who are not followers of Christ, and we may sometimes end up communicating something we don't mean at all. |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2833 posts |
| |
Posted Sep 24, 2009; 4:26 pm |
|
| I also think that if we use terms like 'born again' we should explain them as Jesus did when his listener couldn't figure out how he could be physically reborn. It might be interesting in a thread sometime to get input from posters as to how they would explain terms like 'born again', 'saved', 'eternal life', etc. I think we touched on this before but don't recall a consensus on definition. And perhaps that is a root problem, within Christianity today, we are not unified in our understanding of fundamental terms. |
|
|
|
| Neto Member Joined Feb 2, 2005 254 posts Location: Holmes County, Ohio |
| |
Posted Sep 30, 2009; 11:12 am |
|
Back on Sept 23 I said
[quote]I do enjoy listening to Ravi Zacharias occasionally, .... /quote]
Um.... The next time I listened to him, it wasn't him. I mean it wasn't Ravi. Neither was he Zacharias. In fact, he was someone else - Allister Begg. Same accent, different guy. Just thought I should correct that.... 
Last edited by Neto on Sep 30, 2009; 2:39 pm; edited 1 time in total. |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2833 posts |
| |
Posted Sep 30, 2009; 2:06 pm |
|
| Neto, I have made the same mistake. But I do also enjoy Alastair Begg , 'Truth For Life'. He is in Cleveland across Lake Erie from where I live. He pastors a non-denominational church there. |
|
|
|
|
|
