__________________________________________________
"One wonders why no one in church history has ever been considered a heretic for being unloving. People were anathematized and often tortured and killed for disagreeing on matters of doctrine or on the authority of the church. But no one on record has ever been so much as rebuked for not loving as Christ loved. Yet if love is to be placed above all other considerations (Col. 3:14; 1 Peter 4:8), if nothing has any value apart from love (1 Cor. 13:1-3), and if the only thing that matters is faith working in love (Gal. 5:6), how is it that possessing Christlike love has never been considered the central test of orthodoxy? How is it that those who tortured and burned heretics were not themselves considered heretics for doing so? Was this not heresy of the worst sort? How is it that those who perpetrated such things were not only not deemed heretics but often were (and yet are) held up as "heroes of the faith"?
The Myth of a Christian Nation, Gregory A. Boyd
__________________________________________________
- brother_barabbas
- Eldorado, Ohio, United States
- Who am I? It has nothing to do with who I am! I am the one in whom dwells no good thing. I am as the grass of the field, here one day and ground into flour the next. I am the disciple who Jesus loved! Why, not because of who I am, but because of what HE's done! It has everything to do with what HE's done! He sealed my pardon with His blood! He bought me back from the slave auction, by giving His life. He's done it all! He continually intercedes on my behalf to the Father!
Brains I Pick
9 comments:
a) the paragraph is inaccurate. many have rebuked and called out men or groups for their unloving way they interacted with others. it's just not an accurate statement without any citation.
b) to base actions as the central factor, and not faith, is to again return to legalism. however, become can abstain from some things and act in positive ways in other areas, yet with the wrong heart, these actions are blasphemous to the Lord. therefore, boyd's call for love to be the ultimate standard requires love be defined by and in the cross of Christ.
c) i say this because i assume boyd may be grinding an axe here. boyd has been deemed a heretic by many (i think rightfully so) do to his "openness theology" he espouses. such a view is not consistent with Scripture nor is it orthodox, therefore it should be regarded as heresy. yet, i have heard boyd regularly scream and cry foul at those who would say so and accuse them of being unloving. he has not been tortured. he has not been burned. he has not be physically harmed or persecuted, yet he wants to claim someone is unloving simply for having the audacity to say he is wrong--damnably wrong--and have asked him to reconsider.
unfortunately, this seems to cloud boyd's view of history, as well as the way he views his current circumstances.
aaron, i would have grave concern that reading his materials--especially in light of the fact that you have chosen to remove yourself from any local church accountability--could be terribly destructive without cautiously guarding yourself and understanding that this man does not read the Bible as God intended.
please, let's talk. i'm concerned.
sorry....paragraph "b" should say, "however, someone"
not "however, become"
The person who gave me the book felt that while Boyd upheld some ideas that the church that we were a part of taught, he also felt that the author had a liberal agenda. I know nothing of Gregory except what I have read in the above mentioned book. Based only on the book, I have no criticism of Boyd. In fact, I agree with him. Perhaps when I get to know him better, there will be things that bother me. I think he stressed actions to make a point. And that is that much of Christianity falls too far short of obedience to Christ and his teachings. Oh, I know we all do, but too much of what passes for orthodoxy is in fact in direct opposition to the teachings and life of our Saviour. Let me name some specifics. Divorce and remarriage, Christians going to war, disdain for the homosexual and prostitute as a person and not just the lifestyle, and more interested in, and influenced by the here-and-now instead of eternity. When I read church history, I see "Christians" deceived by the "demonic power" of the sword. When I look at contemporary Christianity, I see "conservative Christians" who have failed at marriage multiple times. I see homosexuals treated in unchristian ways by Christians. I see Christians who put allegiance to the nation-state above obedience to the teachings of Christ. I am sure Boyd allows the divorced and remarried, the veteran, and perhaps even the practicing homosexual admittance into membership in his church. In my opinion, what I read in the book was a man who believes in many of the basic teachings of Jesus, and is not afraid to preach them from the pulpit, even though he might be judged "open to a fault". I am sure Boyd is as imperfect as you and I, and where we might find "heresy" in him, he might find as much in us. Interesting that Jesus was harshly judged as "open" and a "sinner" by the religious establishment of His day. I am willing to bear His reproach.
A stunningly brilliant response to Danny, Sol. Well said!
It seems to me that Danny is the one who is grinding an axe here!
[Gasp!]
"Such a view is not consistent with Scripture nor is it orthodox, therefore it should be regarded as heresy..." Blah, blah, blah.
Will the real heretic please stand up indeed!
"aaron, i would have grave concern that reading his materials--especially in light of the fact that you have chosen to remove yourself from any local church accountability--could be terribly destructive without cautiously guarding yourself and understanding that this man does not read the Bible as God intended."
DANNY, THAT IS A THOROUGHLY INAPPROPRIATE PERSONAL STATEMENT FOR YOU TO BE MAKING PUBLICLY ON AARON'S BLOG SITE.
Furthermore, let's just get this straight: Gregory Boyd does not read the Bible as Danny intended. I doubt he is very concerned about that. Neither am I.
One more thing, Danny. I know for a fact that Aaron has not "chosen to remove himself from ANY local church accountability."
What you have said of Aaron here is a slanderous lie and I think you owe him an apology.
Well, I just have a question.....
Should Aaron have to apologize to Danny for talking about him on Facebook, when Danny can not see what was said, and maybe Aaron should have went to Danny, or addressed it here, if he felt offended?
JanAl:
Are you asking that question to me, and just what exactly are you talking about? Can you be more specific? Because I'm apparently missing something.
First of all, I should state that I should have just minded my own business!
Second, that Aaron has had me fired up for a couple of weeks on FB.
And the question was directed at anyone that wanted to answer.
I went on FB this morning to find Aaron's statement about this blog post, and the statement I assumed that he was complaining about Danny in, but somehow, it is missing!
Anyways, As I explained to Aaron in a message response back to him,
that I am not taking sides with Danny on this post, I honestly have NO IDEA who Boyd is, his teachings or anything else about him, but what bothered me was that
when Aaron was offended by Danny's response on this blog post, he took his frustration to FB, and complained about it on FB.
Now again I am assuming because I never saw Aaron respond to Danny here on this post, that Aaron did NOT go to the one whom he says offended him, when God's word says go to the one who has offended you, not talk about him on FB, where he can not even defend himself.
So I am stating that it is INAPPROPRIATE for Aaron to vent on FB, instead of going to Danny, and that maybe Aaron also needs to apologize.
And again, I could really be sticking my foot in my mouth, if Aaron has already approached Danny.
Post a Comment