tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9926207.post4914296467519691229..comments2024-03-04T00:50:02.182-08:00Comments on KeithGiles.com: RESPONSE TO THE ACCIDENTAL ANGLICANKeith Gileshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00328300571647154699noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9926207.post-548304010165476072009-09-22T13:25:07.021-07:002009-09-22T13:25:07.021-07:00Well, what can I say. Like a Muatard Seed? The ver...Well, what can I say. Like a Muatard Seed? The verses you quote about Peter being in the wrong are self-explanatory, and do not say that Peter was wrong for being a Jew, but for withdrawing from Gentiles out of fear of disapproval of the circumcision faction within the church. The circumcision group held that Gentiles needed to be circumcised and Paul rightly corrected Peter (and Barnabas) for this heresy. Christians are absolutely free to fellowship with Christians from other denominations, cultures, races, and social classes. Christ set us free from factional divisions. I try to practice an ecumenical faith, and I believe in dialogue between believers. I do not require anyone to convert to my particular version of the faith in order to be considered worthy of fellowship.<br /><br />Peace, brothers and sisters.Tracey Alan Shenemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03720419926259798593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9926207.post-33816210718206977122009-09-22T10:37:08.869-07:002009-09-22T10:37:08.869-07:00Were not Jewish Christians yet Jews? Were not Gree...<i>Were not Jewish Christians yet Jews? Were not Greeks still Greeks? What changed, and what needs to change in us, is the attitude that belonging to a certain sect, group, or culture sets us apart and above the rest as "chosen people".</i><br /><br />So... are you saying that Keith is promoting a "sect that denounces sects"? That seems a bit self-contradictory... Yes, Greek Christians were Greeks, and Jewish Christians were Jews, BUT, what happened in Galatians 2?<br /><br /><b>When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. <br /> When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? <br /> "We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.</b> (verses 11-16)<br /><br />Jews were Jews, but they were not permitted to simply hide behind their traditions as the reason for not acting in line with the gospel. The Gospel of Jesus trumped all tradition, and at some point, that stuff has to be let go of. If we want to experience <i>real</i> unity, (whereby we are actually living and interacting with other believers in real fellowship), as opposed to just hypothetical unity, then we must be prepared to let our denominational definitions fall by the way side. Christ is what defines us, period.<br /><br /> We are so blessed to have built real, meaningful relationships with people who've come out of all kinds of denominational backgrounds; Baptist, Reformed, Presbyterian, Vineyard, Lutheran, Calvary Chapel, and Catholic... And like Keith, we know many people who still operate under some denominational "umbrella", but we have to admit that the fellowship is usually stunted, because like the "circumsion group" in Gal. 2, they have been conditioned not to eat with those outside their 'camp'. <br /><br />How does it make sense to say that the different denominations/traditions represent different parts of the Body, if they are all operating completely independantly of one another? Because that is what they do! That is how every denomination started, they broke off, and gave themself a new name, wrote a new creed, and came up with their own liturgy or style or whatever. It is the exact opposite of being the Body, and it is very much like the eye saying to the hand, "I don't need you!"Like a Mustard Seedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12042371209325559952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9926207.post-59293797305874542982009-09-21T23:38:43.705-07:002009-09-21T23:38:43.705-07:00BTW,
The verse that sprang to mind is in Ephesian...BTW, <br />The verse that sprang to mind is in Ephesians 4:11-13, not 1 Cor. 12:28, although I did mix the two. "It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ." Just want to clear that up. Anyway, 1 Cor. 13 is the goal, the conclusion of 1 Cor. 12.Tracey Alan Shenemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03720419926259798593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9926207.post-57860031321552188512009-09-21T23:20:36.987-07:002009-09-21T23:20:36.987-07:00Keith,
I understand and appreciate your views on ...Keith, <br />I understand and appreciate your views on denominalationalism, where I differ is in the assumption that for us to truly be one in Christ we must eschew traditional, or denominational ecclesiology altogether. Were not Jewish Christians yet Jews? Were not Greeks still Greeks? What changed, and what needs to change in us, is the attitude that belonging to a certain sect, group, or culture sets us apart and above the rest as "chosen people". Been there, done that! I don't consider you any less of a brother for emphasizing your desire to see us truly united in Christ; quite the contrary, I applaud your effort! I have been blessed by your sermons, your songs, and your service. I try to remember the words of Jesus, "Wherever two or three gather in my name, I am there among you". I have witnessed the living Christ among the homeless, I have seen him in the lives of prostitutes and drug addicts, and I have heard him speaking through ordained ministers in their vestments. Maybe this verse is helpful: "Therefore every teacher of the law who has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old." Matt. 13:52 If we allow these artificial barriers in our hearts and minds to collapse we will be able to see the reality of Christ in each other.<br /><br />Peace.Tracey Alan Shenemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03720419926259798593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9926207.post-84598565377296548192009-09-21T22:29:53.570-07:002009-09-21T22:29:53.570-07:00I agree with you Tracey. It's not up to you, o...I agree with you Tracey. It's not up to you, or to me to decide these things. We should defer to God's Word for wisdom, direction and guidance. If God reveals something in His Word that tells us how we can be One in Christ, with Christ as our Head (not any man or priest; Rabbi or "Father") then we should obey Him. <br /><br />I think this is where you and I are feeling tension in this conversation: I am talking about ACTUALLY eliminating these divisions between us in favor of allowing Christ to be our ACTUAL Head and Lord. <br /><br />You are talking about metaphorically eliminating these divisions and metaphorically allowing Jesus to be our Head.<br /><br />If we actually allow these divisions between us (man-made denominations) to be tossed aside (for real) and if we actually decide to only be Christians (and not Baptists or Anglicans or whatever) and if we actually allow Jesus to be the Head of our Church (and not any professional clergy or priest), then we will actually enjoy the freedom of being One (for real) and we will actually be taking steps towards what Jesus had in mind when He prayed that we would be One even as He and the Father are One.<br /><br />At least, that's my decidedly minority opinion.<br /><br />In the New Testament we do not find denominations or man-made divisions (except for those that Paul rebukes openly in his letter to the Corinthians).<br /><br />In Heaven we will not be divided into Presbyterians and Episcopalians. We will only be followers and lovers of Jesus.<br /><br />Why don't we go ahead and try to live this way right now? Why don't we go ahead and throw off these man-made divisions which keep us separate?<br /><br />There is only One Body. There is only One Family of God. We are One in Christ - so let's stop playing these label games and love one another.<br /><br />I'm game! And I love you even if you decide to remain a Methodist or a Baptist or whatever. I wish you wouldn't, but I don't condemn you or break fellowship with you because of your choice.<br /><br />In fact, I will go one better. I will treat you as my actual brother in Christ even if you don't attend my church or agree with my ecclesiology or tithe to my church. I will help you and pray for you and support you and love you even if you're not a member of my specific fellowship.<br /><br />That's Kingdom life. That's Family life in Christ.<br /><br />Love you,<br />kgKeith Gileshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00328300571647154699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9926207.post-5574477143873678372009-09-21T21:37:02.422-07:002009-09-21T21:37:02.422-07:00I respect the faith traditions of other believers,...I respect the faith traditions of other believers, whether Anglican, Baptist, Catholic, or what have you. It is not for me to decide what is an appropriate manner of belonging to Christ. By the cross we can transcend human divisions and barriers: there is neither slave nor free, male nor female, Jew nor Gentile, but all are one in Christ Jesus. The question before us is, do we want to be one? Though the body has many members, many different traditions and approaches to understanding and experiencing God's grace and love, we are still one through Christ.Tracey Alan Shenemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03720419926259798593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9926207.post-516834833011536242009-09-21T19:00:15.311-07:002009-09-21T19:00:15.311-07:00Tracey - 1 Cor 12 (which you misapply here) has no...Tracey - 1 Cor 12 (which you misapply here) has nothing to do with defending denominationalism. If anything it's a passage which speaks the most loudly against any such single-pastor form of traditional church. <br /><br />If every church was actively involved in honoring one another and working together as a Body to encourage one another through the Gifts of the Spirit like the one Paul describes in 1 Cor 12 we wouldn't be having this discussion.<br /><br />It's not as if Anglicans are "feet" and "Methodists" are eyes or Charismatics are "hands" in the Body. These are man-made divisions which are not equatable with God-Given Spiritual Gifts.<br /><br />You do see that, don't you?Keith Gileshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00328300571647154699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9926207.post-47872633226062039992009-09-21T17:03:15.983-07:002009-09-21T17:03:15.983-07:00I take no personal offense, Keith. However, we are...I take no personal offense, Keith. However, we are called to serve one another and to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. We acknowledge and serve Jesus Christ as the living head, the source of life, of the body, which is his bride. But does not the body consist of many members, each performing its God-given function? Is it right for the hand to say to the foot, why are you not a hand? Does not the gift of prophecy serve to meet the spiritual needs of believers? And yet, this is accomplished by God through human agency. "My God will supply all your needs according to his riches in Christ Jesus." Does this mean we no longer need to interact with others for mutual support and edification? Obviously not. We no longer live to please ourselves but we willingly yield ourselves to the One who called us according to his mercy. If someone is reading "do as you please" into my defense of Christian freedom I would refer them to Romans ch.s 6 and 14. We certainly are equal at the foot of the cross, and by God's grace he has given some to be prophets, teachers, and evangelists; some the gift of prophecy; some the gift of tongues; some healing; some comforting. No one has earned a higher position in the body; there is only one head. Rather than artificially elevating one class over another, we are to consider others better than ourselves. Conceit and vanity exists in every one of us, whether we attend a traditional church or some other form of meeting and serving. We must guard against it by maintaining a servant attitude and by accepting the discipline of Christ.Tracey Alan Shenemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03720419926259798593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9926207.post-60667863096699328722009-09-21T15:30:13.792-07:002009-09-21T15:30:13.792-07:00Amen Keith...
the verse just came to mind that sa...Amen Keith...<br /><br />the verse just came to mind that says, "My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent"...<br /><br />And all of a sudden, it seems that another "fall-back position" has been high-lighted here, the appeal to our good intentions... <br /><br />Does it really matter if a person consciencely <i>intended</i> to elevate themself above the rest of the Body? Or is the real question about whether or not people end up looking to men, rather than Christ, regardless of whether it was intended or not? Is it okay to take ridiculous amounts of money, and spend it on our own religious trappings, so long as we rationalize it as being for "the ministry"? We seem to get so fixated on our good intentions, but is that really the way we are to measure the actions of those who call themselves the Body of Christ? <br /><br />Peter had "good intentions" when he objected to the idea of Christ's death, but yet Jesus rebuked his words as a voice of the enemy. Peter thought he was acting out of love for his master, yet Jesus told him, "you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men." (Matthew 16:21-23)Like a Mustard Seedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12042371209325559952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9926207.post-74324244780957925422009-09-21T11:42:53.856-07:002009-09-21T11:42:53.856-07:00Tracey - Please don't take personal offense at...Tracey - Please don't take personal offense at this. My article is not an attack on Todd. I've known him for years and I still love and respect him very much.<br /><br />I agree, what matters is loving one another with a clear conscience. But does it not also matter that Jesus made us priests in His Kingdom? Does it not also matter that we are all the living temple of the Holy Spirit? <br /><br />What are we to do with these truths? How are we to respond? Are we allowed to read God's Word and then just do whatever we like? Doesn't it matter what God's plan and intention might be for His Bride? Isn't this part of God's Eternal Purpose in Christ Jesus?<br /><br />These are not small issues. This isn't about preference of worship style or, as Heather and Daniel point out, personal expression. It's a much deeper issue that touches our identity in Christ, the intention of God Himself and the freedom we have been given at the expense of the shed blood of our Savior.<br /><br />Do these things matter?Keith Gileshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00328300571647154699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9926207.post-28105926417792965802009-09-21T11:32:38.982-07:002009-09-21T11:32:38.982-07:00To avoid confusion and possible misrepresentation ...To avoid confusion and possible misrepresentation of fact, why doesn't someone just ask Mr. Hunter why he decided on Anglicanism, and if he considers himself "elevated" above the laity? I mean, go to the source instead of speculating or casting a cloud over the man's reputation. I intend to do just what I propose. BTW, I attend a UMC congregation, very traditional service with a progressive social theology. But what matters is loving one another with a clear conscience. <br /><br />Peace.Tracey Alan Shenemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03720419926259798593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9926207.post-31103589526006155102009-09-21T11:02:17.791-07:002009-09-21T11:02:17.791-07:00I would just chime in to say that "church&quo...I would just chime in to say that "church" isn't something that exists as something to meet out spiritual needs... JESUS is the one who is there to meet all our spiritual (and other) needs! The church is really just those who look to Jesus to have their needs met. If we get that mixed up, then we are essentially looking to human beings (however they are organized) to do what only God can...<br /><br /><br />Ultimately it's not a debate over what kind of "expression" is more valid, it's a discussion of who we are in Christ, and how Christ has actually called us to live. Are we not all equal at the foot of the cross? Then let's not elevate certain people above the rest and adorn them with robes and titles... Has God really destroyed the physical temple, wanting to have relationship with us in every area of our lives? Then let's not continue building our own little "temples" in order to try and get closer to Him. <br /><br />"Expression" seems to have become this ultimate barricade which we run behind to defend certain things. If we call something a form of "expression", then it must be deemed valid, and can't be criticized. But Jesus certainly called out many people in regards to their forms of religious "expression"...Like a Mustard Seedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12042371209325559952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9926207.post-34948614240882982432009-09-21T10:50:25.888-07:002009-09-21T10:50:25.888-07:00What I mean by "Old Testament Christianity&qu...What I mean by "Old Testament Christianity" is the practice of mixing Jesus with the Old Testament priesthood and temple system of worship. <br /><br />So, we rebuild our Temples (buildings), we re-institute the formal Levitical form of Priesthood (where they are the keepers of the Word and the voice of God for the people), and we re-sew the veil and revert to a form of worship where God is in His Holy Temple and only the Holy Men of God may approach the Ark of the Covenant, etc.<br /><br />This is what I see in denominational churches, and it's a direct contradiction to what Jesus was doing by the Cross and what the Apostles promoted and practiced in the formation of the New Testament Church.<br /><br />The New Testament makes it very clear that the Spirit of God has now fallen on all flesh in fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel (see Acts 2) and now the Temple of God which Jesus is building (His Church) has begun as every single baptized believer in Christ is now a part of the priesthood of all believers and the temple of the Holy Spirit - both individually and collectively.<br /><br />You can't have it both ways. Either you are under an Old Testament form of Christianity (with Temples and Priests) or you are under the New Testament form of Christianity embodied by priests and living temples of God.<br /><br />This isn't about Todd at all. It's about our ecclesiology and our practice of the Christian faith according to the revealed Word of God.<br /><br />If I'm wrong about this, I would welcome someone to correct me.<br /><br />Peace,<br />kgKeith Gileshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00328300571647154699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9926207.post-11523740251913815902009-09-21T10:08:50.183-07:002009-09-21T10:08:50.183-07:00Keith,
"Old Testament Christianity" is ...Keith, <br />"Old Testament Christianity" is not a term I am familiar with. If by such you mean biblical fundamentalism, literalism, and male hierarchy then I agree with you 100%. I would not feel at home in that kind of environment. My problem is with the assumption that by embracing the Anglican communion Todd has betrayed the body of Christ. I just don't read it that way. I read the entire C.T. article and I am not convinced that Todd has done anything for which he need be ashamed. I'm not saying your post amounts to a personal attack on Todd's character. I am calling into question our response to a brother's expression of faith.Tracey Alan Shenemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03720419926259798593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9926207.post-34910911101402271592009-09-21T08:25:48.620-07:002009-09-21T08:25:48.620-07:00Tracey, all I've done here is to respond to wh...Tracey, all I've done here is to respond to what Todd has said in his interview. I haven't attacked him or insulted him or condemned him in this response. In fact, I have done my best to honor him throughout the article for his past mentoring of me spiritually and for the things he currently stands for that I am in complete agreement with. <br /><br />My criticsm is not so much of Todd as it is of Denominationalism and "Old Testament Christianity" itself.<br /><br />What is Denominationalism? Is it from God or is it from man? You can't find Denominations in the Bible. Denominations are man-made divisions. The prayer of Jesus was that we would all be one, even as He and the Father were One.<br /><br />I, like many others, have come to a place in my christian life when I can no longer be a Baptist, I can only be a Christian.<br /><br />If the Body is ruled by its members we will only have Chaos - not Unity. Only when the Head is in total control will the Body have true Unity and become fully submitted to Christ- not to one of its own members or Body parts.<br /><br />I cannot sit quietly while my brothers and sisters ignore the New Testament concepts of the Priesthood of all Believers - it's a large part of what Jesus died on the cross to purchase for us (Rev 5:9-10), and the Truth that we are now the Temple of God which the Messiah was prophesied to build (Zech 6:11-13).Keith Gileshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00328300571647154699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9926207.post-31632214229043516922009-09-21T02:09:11.856-07:002009-09-21T02:09:11.856-07:00Are we not committing the error of not considering...Are we not committing the error of not considering the plank in our own eye? Let's be careful where we tread here, as this is holy ground. There are virtues and drawbacks to both house churches and traditional church gatherings. I used to sit above the church in judgment instead of risking soiling my garments by engaging "organized religion". Alas, it was a fascade for me to avoid being my "brother's keeper" and helping others. I think that ultimately we each get out what we put in, and that includes house churches and conventional churches alike. And if a traditional church is not meeting the spiritual needs of the congregation it is failing its function. We are "one body with many members"; there is no "one-size-fits-all" solution that can meet the needs of all believers. And while the traditional church has a lot to answer for (I level plenty of criticisms on my blog), it is for some the place God has called them to serve. Yes, we can have our cake and eat it, too! Besides, God knows who belongs to him, in house churches or the traditional church.Freedom makes some uncomfortable but we are free nonetheless. Let's not put a stumbling block in each others' path. Praise God for this indescribable gift!<br /><br />Tracey Sheneman<br />newchurchtimes.blogspot.comTracey Alan Shenemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03720419926259798593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9926207.post-56731563466277420262009-09-19T16:14:36.265-07:002009-09-19T16:14:36.265-07:00Frank - I am in the process of writing a book righ...Frank - I am in the process of writing a book right now that I think is close to what you have in mind. It's tentatively called "Jesus Called. He Wants His Church Back"...or "Church (Un)Incorporated".<br /><br />Either way I'll address the NT concepts of Temple and Priesthood.<br /><br />kgKeith Gileshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00328300571647154699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9926207.post-91880094040897565042009-09-19T08:14:54.587-07:002009-09-19T08:14:54.587-07:00I also find it very troubling that Todd has done t...I also find it very troubling that Todd has done this. There are so many things to say about it. Having grown up in the Roman Catholic Church I can assure Todd that using liturgy in your church services does not transfer into loving one another once the mass is over. One part of the liturgy that was introduced in the sixties was turning around and offering a hand of peace. People would turn around and shake each others hand and say peace (it was the only time the mass had any relational touch to it... people actually smiled while doing it) but it did not lead to sacrificial love during the week. The only thing that will do that is to devote yourself to the apostles teaching as the article a few days earlier said. <br /> Keith get used to it, unfortunately there is a huge attraction in people for Old Testament religion and/or spirituality. It is sad but true. <br /> Particulary heartbreaking for me is when I saw a picture of Todd in his priestly robes. I could not believe it. I really hope he wakes up some day and shakes his head and says "I just had a bad dream." <br /><br />Kieth its time for you to write a book called "Back to the Temple." There has to be a way of convincing people that temple spirituality is not God's way to draw closer to him.Frank Doironnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9926207.post-62923721908267606782009-09-18T22:57:21.914-07:002009-09-18T22:57:21.914-07:00My initial take on the "structures and proces...My initial take on the "structures and processes" comment is that perhaps he is referring to the emergent movement as too 'unstructured'(read more organic) and thus lacks the focus for evangelism and leadership.<br />Of course Anglican polity seems steeped in the traditional approach to church.<br />It is very interesting and puzzling to see the pendulum swing back toward liturgy, but it makes some sense in considering the emergent movement's seeming disarray, lack of clear focus and sometimes even ADD-like approach to reaching the world for Christ.<br />Guess we'll have to take a wait and see attitude?banjarphilehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649443222229232495noreply@blogger.com