What's the difference between evangelicalism/fundamentalism and Common Root peoples' general beliefs?

[leeann]

New here, and have seen a post about scripture being colored by human interpretation. It depends on the version that you are reading, but John said that Jesus IS His Word... Unsure that a liberal view of scripture is part of Common Root peoples' beliefs, or just the person who was commenting.

Other differences?

Yes, evangelicalism has let us down. Including me. -Especially the lack of community. "The church is a whore but she is my mother." -aproximate quote of an evangelical, A. Compollo.

[leeann]

REVISED for clarity

First, thank you for staying with this discussion.

written to me:
"How can we serve you?
I perceive you may be skittish about the ideas shared here. Be certain, some of them are pure heresy. That’s why we write. To have the heresy outted of our own thinking."

response:
You can serve me by just staying with the conversation. Thanks for asking!

"Be certain, some of them are pure heresy." Very plain and clarifying. Thanks.

"That’s why we write. To have the heresy outted of our own thinking." Can't beat that! I may or may not find enough common ground to stay with this, but either way, respect everyones' straight forwardness. Refreshing. Really.

Am I skittish about some of this conversation? Maybe some in the discussion don't recognize outworking/implications of their assumptions. I'll clarify, hopefully helping us to understand each other:

"Setting a prescribed sets of doctrines serves only to exclude certain issues from debate."

-To be candid, this statement isn't accurate. Doctrines are just a grounding place: a starting point so we understand the foundation we're working from. Why would it follow that issues or people are excluded? All are welcome.

Yes, for centuries there were, and still are different understandings of Christ, including that He is not God. It's just mature to discuss differences respectfully. Yet if there's no common understanding of truth, because we assume that words can mean different things to different people, then words lose all meaning. Relevant to us: who Jesus said He is, i.e. John 1:1, and places in the NT that reference the OT statements about the Messiah and God. God chose to reveal Himself through words. Who am I to change God's means of revelation? -

None of us grocery shop with "apple" on the list and think "spinache" will substitute in a recipe. Yes? No? This is a VERY neutral example. To make a stronger point, my very sweet, encouraging former step-mother would say that all religions lead to the same place... very relativist. -But she said that child abuse was wrong. What? -Without common definitions, she could not have said "child abuse is wrong": none of those words would have a definition. To be even more to the point: none of us want the person who can't agree on the definition of "child" or "abuse" as a babysitter... I personally don't want to marry a man who does not agree on what "marriage" or "faithful" means. So having no definition of God and how He says we can be in a right relationship with Him, and with others, is untennable.

Continuing with blunt candor: orthopraxy with "the least of these". One commenter stated that his love for others overrode essential beliefs... pointing out that he serves outwardly (to our eyes) less attractive people. Of course that's awesome. Who would argue? -I could say the same, if working with severely mentally ill people and people who live outdoors, and people who have entered my office having molested children and reporting other types of abuse were the qualifier. But it isn't. God defines truths that we believe. He says that His Word is "God breathed" (as for as our modern versions reflect the original autographs) and that Jesus IS the Word: with the Father from the beginning.

To exclude anyone by the way I use truth is missing God's mark. Really wrongly and sadly, essentials of the faith are used by some as weapons. -Or to hold uncomfortable issues at bay. Like when an abusive parent tells the kids to obey because it's God's will. Whether humans quote God's truths with love or not, we are not the true north for our orthopraxy. -Or authors of truth. The point that seems to emerge as the common root is, if we don't have a common understanding to work from about who Jesus is and how the Author choses to define Himself, then we HAVE no common root. Only words that we expect to be misconstrued and are meaningless for any kind of communication with each other.

[leeann]

A tangent, esp. for Andrew :)

http://www.biblicaldefense.org/Writings/is_jesus_god.htm accesssed 3.11.09

Is Jesus God?
"Old Testament predictions concerning the Messiah—Daniel 9:26; Isaiah 42:4; Isaiah 53—are enough to prove that only Jesus of Nazareth meets the messianic qualifications. Daniel 9:26 stated that the Messiah would be executed before the destruction of the temple (which occurred in 70AD). Isaiah 42:4 teaches that the Gentile nations would expectantly await Christ's law. Isaiah 53 declares that the Jews would reject their Messiah. Jesus of Nazareth is the only person in history who has fulfilled all three of these prophecies. He claimed to be the Jewish Messiah and was crucified around 30AD (forty years before the temple was destroyed), the Jews rejected Him, and He received a wide Gentile following.

The life of an insane man would not be prophesied. It is also unlikely that these predictions would refer to an insane man as the Messiah (God's annointed one) and "the mighty God" (Isaiah 9:6). More than 200 years before Jesus' birth, His life and works were predicted. He fulfilled these prophecies and performed many miracles. It is absurd for someone to call Jesus insane. To accept His claims is the only reasonable response.

The historical evidence shows that Jesus claimed to be God and proved it by raising Himself from the dead. History shows these claims are not legends, and that He was not a liar, insane, or merely a great man. Therefore, Jesus of Nazareth is God."

The following ancient creed was formulated and proclaimed by the first generation church. It declares Jesus to be God and Savior, and instructs all creation to surrender to His Lordship:

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:5-11).

"Several of these ancient creeds teach the deity of Christ (Philippians 2:5-11; Romans 10:9-10; 1 Timothy 3:16). Therefore, there is no reason to doubt that Jesus claimed to be God. The leaders of the first generation church taught that Jesus is God, and they were willing to die for their testimony. Hence, there is no reason (apart from an a priori bias) to reject the claims of deity made by Christ in the New Testament. The Jews understood that Jesus was claiming to be God:
But He answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I myself am working." For this cause the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God (John 5:17-18)."

"A clear and articulate representation of His words would have been in His best interest; He was executed for blasphemy. (Mark 14:60-64)."

"You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins. . . . Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am (John 8:23-24; 58)."

"I and the Father are one." The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make yourself out to be God" (John 10:30-33)."

"The apostles were Jesus' closest associates. They were more familiar with the teachings of Christ than anyone else and they called Jesus God (Matthew 1:23; John 1:1; John 20:28; Philippians 2:6; Colossians 2:9; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1). This is further confirmation that Jesus did in fact claim to be God."




Andrew Cornelius said:

But God says that His Word is "God breathed" (as for as our modern versions reflect the original autographs) and that Jesus IS the Word: with the Father from the beginning.

Peter said that, first of all. And "inspired" in Greek does not mean dictated by God like the Quran is regarded by Muslims.

Second, the author of John's gospel (not God), utilized the Greek concept of logos to introduce his readers with a particular christology. Some scholars argue the introduction is a later addition even, which is an argument with some merit. Either way, the more historical accounts do not present Jesus declaring himself as YHWH. Read through Mark's gospel, for example. If Jesus' identity as God Himself is "essential" why did he not proclaim that? Instead he focused on the kingdom of God.

The point that seems to emerge as the common root is, if we don't have a common understanding to work from (not to exclude anyone) about who Jesus is and how the Author choses to define Himself, then we HAVE no common root.

No, we just wouldn't share your perception of what the common root must be. Jesus was concerned with people heeding his words, with people living the kingdom. He didn't go around asking people to address him as God and to worship him.


This conversation actually addresses the difference between many people on CR and the common evangelical or fundamentalist approach to the faith. The latter tends to quantify and intellectualize most everything and accordingly, often tends toward biblioatry. What becomes apparent is that the root, then, is functionally a collection of writings rather than the living God. Jesus probably didn't leave us any writings for good reason. We humans tend to exhault the material.

[Mark Van Steenwyk]

I know this has been brought up already, but this all gets back to what sort of community the Common Root is. Personally speaking, I believe in the full divinity of Jesus and that deeply informs everything I do. I have other deeply held convictions that are heralded as "orthodox" as well: the Triune nature of God, the virginal conception of Jesus, etc.

But the Common Root doesn't set itself up as a gathering of true Christians. It isn't even an attempt at unifying people. To me, the Common Root functions more like a Political Action Committee for the Politics of Jesus (I'm using the word "politics" in broader sense: that we are called to collectively embody Christ's presence in a way that confronts the systems of the world...for more on that I recommend J.H. Yoder's the Politics of Jesus). It is focused on shared practices in Empire. Now, it assumes some beliefs--for it is impossible to talk about practices apart from beliefs. But in many areas, I am content to labor alongside any folks who call Jesus Lord and are committed to the same sort of embodied posture in the shadow of Empire.

The truth is, if the Common Root were a church, it would be a different story. Many of us wouldn't feel comfortable worshiping together or being in an intentional community together, etc.

[Nathanael Snow]

The Christiological issue should be a different thread. It is worth discussion, especially if outflowing consequences are considered.
And Mark is right. We probably could not form a local congregation from among those gathered here, at least not one with a confession.
I like Scott's points about the differences between modernist and postmodern theology. CR certainly adopts postmodernism. Which is why, leeann, some of your arguments will not gain much traction here. Some of mine fail to purchase as well!

[Andrew Cornelius]

Leeann,

Don't you find it odd you have to cite John almost exclusively for most of your claims? Moreover, the gospel of Mark does not say that the blasphemy the high priest perceived was Jesus claiming to be YHWH. What Jesus said, by referencing the book of Daniel, was that he is the Messiah and the Son of Man.

God raised Jesus from the dead.

Jesus prayed to God.

Your interpretation of Jesus' peers claiming Jesus was promoting himself as God isn't quite right. Why? Because Jesus was proclaiming the forgiveness of sins himself. Doing this apart from the temple was the blasphemy. For Jews, only God could forgive. And this ties into the very heart of the matter regarding Jesus. It isn't inconsequential that his actions in the temple during passover sealed his demise (or caused it altogether).

I'll read what you have to say, but realize you are debating someone who used to hold your views. After much Bible study and research I found my theology was lacking. Jesus did not go around claiming to be God. If he had, his own disciples probably would have deserted him as a lunatic. What he was saying is that he is the Son of Man and the Messiah (i.e., the annointed one).

[Andrew Cornelius]

Yes, a different thread is fine. Mark, as the founder of the site (right?), has clarified its purpose so I assume the initial question you had, leeann, has been sufficiently addressed.

[leeann]

this actually answers this discussion's title question. up until now the responses to the question have not helped answer it much, wit a couple still ambiguous exceptions. thanks.

Mark Van Steenwyk said:

I know this has been brought up already, but this all gets back to what sort of community the Common Root is. Personally speaking, I believe in the full divinity of Jesus and that deeply informs everything I do. I have other deeply held convictions that are heralded as "orthodox" as well: the Triune nature of God, the virginal conception of Jesus, etc.

But the Common Root doesn't set itself up as a gathering of true Christians. It isn't even an attempt at unifying people. To me, the Common Root functions more like a Political Action Committee for the Politics of Jesus (I'm using the word "politics" in broader sense: that we are called to collectively embody Christ's presence in a way that confronts the systems of the world...for more on that I recommend J.H. Yoder's the Politics of Jesus). It is focused on shared practices in Empire. Now, it assumes some beliefs--for it is impossible to talk about practices apart from beliefs. But in many areas, I am content to labor alongside any folks who call Jesus Lord and are committed to the same sort of embodied posture in the shadow of Empire.

The truth is, if the Common Root were a church, it would be a different story. Many of us wouldn't feel comfortable worshiping together or being in an intentional community together, etc.

[Mark Van Steenwyk]

Andrew Cornelius said:

Yes, a different thread is fine. Mark, as the founder of the site (right?), has clarified its purpose so I assume the initial question you had, leeann, has been sufficiently addressed.

To clarify: actually, I'm one of about 10 founders, but am the admin for the site.

[Andrew Cornelius]

Awesome. Good to know.