The Internet has been a real blessing to me. It has enabled me to continue my education, expand my Christian contacts [like you, I hope, dear reader], entertain myself with youtube and blog-reading and even help me to witness the Truth in love and minister to those in need. It also drives me right out of my mind.

In the past I could ignore those groups of people who say they are Christian, and may well be , yet practice something I find disturbing, like snake handling, or legalism. Now I am exposed to things I formerly was able to ignore. At the top of my personal Ignorance list was the existence of a cottage industry full of vehemence and bile, that group of people who say they are Christian and spend their lives criticizing everything that happens in a building with a cross on the roof. Don’t get me wrong, there are some loose wingnuts on the wheels of modern Christianity, and pointing out the insanity is healthy! I am not talking about those of us [me] who desire to point out wackos and frauds; I mean people who take on whole denominations, entire -faith-groups of mainstream believers, or really well known figureheads of the faith.

Is there any point in declaring Billy Graham to be anathema? All right he is old and says some odd things today, but have you read his stuff? Did you see his track record? If we were all anathema like Graham there would be a lot more Christians. Is it necessary for the Kingdom to declare John Macarthur a heretic? I have problems with dispensationalism, the whole Jesus just making a touch and go but not really landing is odd to me; I don’t own a Scofield, but MacArthur preaches the gospel! If you do a little googleing you can find somebody against anybody! It is not only individuals that get the indictment of heresy, the Southern Baptist Convention is working for the devil if you listen to some. Now I have been in the SBC tent for 12 years, there are issues. Are they apostasy? Are they anathema? Again, if you look you will find some group nailing away at another group as if they get paid a quarter a word.

Has the discernment of God’s people so decreased that we can not tell a Todd Bentley from a Ravi Zacharias? We can’t perceive a difference in message from Benny Hinn to Tim Keller? We can’t see a change in group dynamic from C.M.A. to the K.K.K.?

We need to read and follow Paul’s advise to the Philippians, “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things [are] honest, whatsoever things [are] just, whatsoever things [are] pure, whatsoever things [are] lovely, whatsoever things [are] of good report; if [there be] any virtue, and if [there be] any praise, think on these things.” I listen to a lot of sermons. I am not seeking an error in another’s ways, I am seeking to be fed on the word of God. If there is something on the plate I do not like, I don’t throw the whole dish to the ground and condemn the cook, I take what I like and praise the meal.

Please look out of the box you live in. Look at Europe. Can you call it Christian? Have you seen England? Do you think we live in an age where we can pick each other apart without serving the Enemy? It just can’t be that hard to separate the wheat from the tares. People my age will remember the Supreme Court decision on pornography. In attempting to define it one judge said, “you know it when you see it.” That definition did not stick, but come on, you know it when you see it. I do not think you need a PhD in theology to know good doctrine from false. Good doctrine may not be perfect doctrine, but it is not purposely false. As for false doctrine, you know it when you see it, it is a lot like porn.

So:

-I have issues
-You have issues
-Those we work with have issues
-Those we interact with have issues

Add it all up and you get one big mess.

But a mess is what Jesus chose to be born into when he arrived on this planet. 12 messes were what he chose for 12 disciples. The Kingdom of God emerging from the mess was what he preached. Eventually he died for the mess.

Today, he is merciful enough to save messes like me; gracious enough to work in messes like me; generous enough to work through messes like me; and patient enough to stick with messes like me (despite frequent royal screw-ups).

Whatever you choose to do in the Kingdom of God, expect a mess. Remember that you are part of the mess. Be gracious with the messes (people) around you. While you’re at it, have fun. Don’t take yourself too seriously. Be a pleasure to be around. Avoid the ‘spiritual gift’ of speck-spotting (Matthew 7:3). Work hard. Do stuff when you don’t feel like it. Smile.

The alternatives to not being in a mess are: (1) another mess, (2) pulling out altogether. Since the latter is not an option biblically…

Choose your mess.

Moderators note:  Michael has graciously allowed us to repost this article at Eclectic Christian.

Somewhere in the previous orgy of comments I’ve had this week, someone asked me to write about “What do you see as the ideal evangelicalism?”

There is no ideal evangelicalism and there’s not going to be. It’s certainly not going to be ideal if I am the architect. So let’s not get out of hand here. I’m a blogger, which tells you about all you need to know on the subject of my credibility.

But that won’t stop me from answering the question in a slightly different form: “What would make for a much better evangelicalism?”

I promise the answers are going to be short.

1) Evangelicalism would be much better if it would admit that the Reformation and all subsequent divisions divided the one true church of Christ. None of those divisions created a new church or recreated the one, true church. All of Christianity today is the broken parts of what should be whole and entire.

2) Evangelicalism would be much better if it learned to see its own destructive, polluting entanglement in culture instead of trying to justify that entanglement as evangelism. Evangelicals have to live in culture, and I believe we should influence it, discern it and build admirable contributions to it, but the most essential attitude we should have toward it is to avoid the destructive, parasitic entanglements with culture that have sucked the life, power and distinctiveness from evangelicalism, especially in North America.

3) Evangelicalism would be better if it would admit and address its authority issue. Evangelicalism consists, to a large extent, of groups and individuals waving Bibles and shouting verses at one another. Evangelicals use terms like “Biblical Christianity” as if they could actually produce such a thing if asked. The assumption that our views are “based on the Bible” has produced a cacophony of contradictory, divisive and endless claims, counter-claims and wars. The evolution of evangelicalism seems destined to be toward the opposite poles of abandoning the concept of authority completely to the individual (usually the charismatic pastor) or creating an authoritarian hothouse where complete submission is obligatory to avoid exile or worse. Evangelicals have an authority problem. They will quite possibly never solve it as evangelicals, but they can make the situation considerably better by directly addressing the problems created in Protestantism and evangelicalism by our various approaches to authority and implementing serious measures to bring some coherence to the situation.

4) Evangelicalism would be better if it rid itself of every form of the prosperity Gospel and pursued spiritual formation and an imitation of Jesus that was consistent with what Jesus and the New Testament teach about money.

5) Evangelicalism would be better if it learned to see, in the various divisions of Christianity, the remaining diversity that once adorned the united church: liturgy, missions, evangelism, spiritual formation, theology, Biblical study, the work of the Holy Spirit, the power of the sacraments. Even if these divisions cannot be overcome, the visible remains of the once glorious body of Christ can still be seen and experienced, even in our broken condition. Evangelicalism should determine, like Merton said, to bring together in itself as many different aspects of the holistic church of Jesus as possible. As someone recently said, we are in a time when the basis of Christianity is being eroded in masse, yet we are still debating the issues of the 16th century divisions and ignoring how irrelevant these are to the world at large. I affirm with my own denomination the need for a Great Commission Resurgence, and it must encompass all Christian traditions, but especially evangelicalism.

6) Evangelicalism would be better if thousands of churches die and many thousands more are born via healthy church planting relationships.

7) Evangelicalism would be better if it brought out all of its riches of corporate worship and put them on display, rather than throwing out what seems old, selling out what seems out of fashion and denouncing what isn’t popular. Evangelicals have in the more ancient, broader, deeper, wider Christian tradition all those aspects and elements of worship that can not only end the worship wars, but bring the focus of worship clearly onto Christ being exalted in all things. Evangelicals are starving by the millions for Christ focused worship and gospel dominated spirituality, but at this crucial hour, we are determined to be trendy, innovative and to get more cars in the parking lot. A sad betrayal of all we know for the wisdom of the world. We’ll be very sorry in 20 years.

8. Evangelicals would be much better off if, as a movement, they had a common set of confessional/creedal/catechetical documents. Further, evangelicalism would be much better if it recognized a shared ordained ministry.

9) Evangelicals would be be much better off it they were poor and had to proceed, in every way, without the assumption that they can easily generate millions of dollars to do whatever they want to do. We need to embrace poverty for the sake of Christ, and repent of our idolatry of all things big, successful, wealthy and powerful. In the midst of this, we should repent of and renounce our dreams of political influence.

10) Evangelicals would be much better off if the Charismatic movement were to become a manistream part of every church, renewing and being renewed; giving and being nurtured itself. Christianity is not the dead, dry, dusty movement most of us see. It is alive with power and emotion; with human and divine energy. We should desire the full manifestation of the Holy Spirit and the continual empowering, freeing, healing, humbling work of the Spirit. Charismatic Christianity needs a Biblical/theological rescue, but mainstream evangelicalism desperately needs the spiritual movement that is at the heart of healthy third-wave and charismatic movements.

Moderators note:  This post was previously published by Michael Spencer at Internet Monk.  I believe it captures a good part of the spirit of what we are trying to accomplish at Eclectic Christian and so asked Michael Spencer’s permission to republish it here. – Michael Bell

I love Christmas movies. We have many great family memories of watching Emmet Otter’s Jug Band Christmas or singing “Sisters” and “Snow” with the cast of White Christmas. I have some personal favorites like almost any version of A Christmas Carol, the original Tim Allen Santa Clause and the strangely dark and mysterious Prancer.

I’m not a fan of the popular Christmas film Miracle on 34th Street. I’ve watched it 3 or 4 times, and maybe I just wasn’t quite in that particular frame of mind where a Christmas movie really appeals to me, but it’s never been a favorite of mine.

But there is something about “Miracle” that does appeal to me. We can call it “Miracle on 34th Street Ecumenism.”

In the story, the supposedly insane Kris Kringle (Santa to the unintitated) is inspired with a plan. The two large downtown New York department stores can change the way they compete with one another. Instead of making the other store the enemy, they could each take a more gracious view of one another. (At least at Christmas.)

How did that work? Each store did what stores do: they tried to offer the best products at the best prices to the most customers. But when the other store had a better product at a better price, you cheerfully sent the customer to the other store, with best wishes and the simple recognition that your store couldn’t do everything.

This change in behavior and attitude sparks a revolution in the retail jungle. Long time competitors treating one another with respect? With grace? With generosity? Actually recommending that someone go to the other store? And spend money?

Isn’t that unthinkable?

No…it actually sounds like Jesus and his upside down Kingdom. (It actually sounds like St. Nicholas, too. But that’s another story.)

What if Kris Kringle’s crazy idea became the model for ecumenism?

What if we all recognized that we get some things right, but we also get a lot of things wrong? And what if we recognized that some other traditions get the things right that we get wrong?

What if we recognized where others have been more Biblically faithful than we’ve been? What if we recognized that our pride can turn us into bullies when we ought to be friends? (We are all in this together, aren’t we?)

What if we recognized some churches feed the poor, or do liturgy, or preach faithfully or address the issue of race better than we do? And what if we weren’t afraid to point out those strengths?

What if we sat down and learned from one another? What if we sent some of our people to the other church to listen, watch, worship, pray, work and learn? And then come back and share the gathered wealth?

What if we embraced our brothers and sisters in Christ rather than in every point of doctrine? What if we confessed our common faith rather than constantly pointing out the deficiencies of the other tradition? What if we imagined what we’d do if all Christians were persecuted, imprisoned or tortured?

What if we extended the name of brother and sister to other Christians, rather than the theological labels that immediately advertise our differences…and our “rightness” in comparison to their “wrongness?”

What if we valued differing traditions as preserving different and valuable aspects of Christianity rather than seeing them only as competitors to be defeated and perpetuators of error?

If department stores could send a customer to the other store for a better price on a refrigerator, why couldn’t we send someone to another tradition to find what we’re out of, threw away, devalued or never had?

If department stores could take advice from Jesus (or Santa), why can’t we? The stores didn’t go out of business. They didn’t merge. They didn’t publish pages and pages of heated rhetoric about one another. They didn’t act as if their mission was to put the other store out of business.

They embraced something new. The embraced serving people; they embraced a higher sense of what it meant to do business. They believed a kind of radical, backwards logic that resembles what Jesus constantly calls us to. It is the transforming and surprising logic of the Kingdom of God, where the law of love says to love our enemies, to go the second mile and to wash one another’s feet.

Oh, I know….this is a ridiculous post. I know that I don’t exemplify what I’m writing about. I know there are a dozen serious objections and a hundred people waiting with their own stories of how badly they’ve been treated and misrepresented. Sometimes I’m the culprit.

But it’s a better way, and I think we all know it. We can’t conduct our relations with other Christians as if our books and arguments and podcasts are going to make them go away. A dozen books and a thousand blog posts aren’t going to turn Christians into Catholics or Calvinists or Lutherans or Charismatics or Baptists.

So, until Jesus comes back, why don’t we treat one another- as traditions and as churches- with the same crazy grace that Kris Kringle believed could transform department stores?

(Moderator’s note: I found this article over five years ago, and have kept it on my computer ever since. Update: I believe my source was beliefnet which in turn was an excerpt from Catholic Parent Magazine in 2000.)

We’ve all heard the allegations: Halloween is a pagan rite dating back to some pre-Christian festival among the Celtic Druids that escaped church suppression. Even today modern pagans and witches continue to celebrate this ancient festival. If you let your kids go trick-or-treating, they will be worshiping the devil and pagan gods.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The origins of Halloween are, in fact, very Christian and rather American. Halloween falls on October 31 because of a pope, and its observances are the result of medieval Catholic piety.
It’s true that the ancient Celts of Ireland and Britain celebrated a minor festival on October 31–as they did on the last day of most other months of the year. However, Halloween falls on the last day of October because the Feast of All Saints, or “All Hallows,” falls on November 1. The feast in honor of all the saints in heaven used to be celebrated on May 13, but Pope Gregory III (d. 741) moved it to November 1, the dedication day of All Saints Chapel in St. Peter’s at Rome. Later, in the 840s, Pope Gregory IV commanded that All Saints be observed everywhere. And so the holy day spread to Ireland.
The day before was the feast’s evening vigil, “All Hallows Even,” or “Hallowe’en.” In those days Halloween didn’t have any special significance for Christians or for long-dead Celtic pagans.
In 998, St. Odilo, the abbot of the powerful monastery of Cluny in southern France, added a celebration on November 2. This was a day of prayer for the souls of all the faithful departed. This feast, called All Souls Day, spread from France to the rest of Europe.
So now the Church had feasts for all those in heaven and all those in purgatory. What about those in the other place? It seems Irish Catholic peasants wondered about the unfortunate souls in hell. After all, if the souls in hell are left out when we celebrate those in heaven and purgatory, they might be unhappy enough to cause trouble. So it became customary to bang pots and pans on All Hallows Even to let the damned know they were not forgotten. Thus, in Ireland at least, all the dead came to be remembered–even if the clergy were not terribly sympathetic to Halloween and never allowed All Damned Day into the church calendar.
But that still isn’t our celebration of Halloween. Our traditions on this holiday center on dressing up in fanciful costumes, which isn’t Irish at all. Rather, this custom arose in France during the 14th and 15th centuries. Late medieval Europe was hit by repeated outbreaks of the bubonic plague–the Black Death–and it lost about half its population. It is not surprising that Catholics became more concerned about the afterlife.
More Masses were said on All Souls Day, and artistic representations were devised to remind everyone of their own mortality. We know these representations as the danse macabre, or “dance of death,” which was commonly painted on the walls of cemeteries and shows the devil leading a daisy chain of people–popes, kings, ladies, knights, monks, peasants, lepers, etc.–into the tomb. Sometimes the dance was presented on All Souls Day itself as a living tableau with people dressed up in the garb of various states of life.

But the French dressed up on All Souls, not Halloween; and the Irish, who had Halloween, did not dress up. How the two became mingled probably happened first in the British colonies of North America during the 1700s, when Irish and French Catholics began to intermarry. The Irish focus on hell gave the French masquerades an even more macabre twist.
But as every young ghoul knows, dressing up isn’t the point; the point is getting as many goodies as possible. Where on earth did “trick or treat” come in?
“Treat or treat” is perhaps the oddest and most American addition to Halloween and is the unwilling contribution of English Catholics.
During the penal period of the 1500s to the 1700s in England, Catholics had no legal rights. They could not hold office and were subject to fines, jail and heavy taxes. It was a capital offense to say Mass, and hundreds of priests were martyred.
Occasionally, English Catholics resisted, sometimes foolishly. One of the most foolish acts of resistance was a plot to blow up the Protestant King James I and his Parliament with gunpowder. This was supposed to trigger a Catholic uprising against the oppressors. The ill-conceived Gunpowder Plot was foiled on November 5, 1605, when the man guarding the gunpowder, a reckless convert named Guy Fawkes, was captured and arrested. He was hanged; the plot fizzled.
November 5, Guy Fawkes Day, became a great celebration in England, and so it remains. During the penal periods, bands of revelers would put on masks and visit local Catholics in the dead of night, demanding beer and cakes for their celebration: trick or treat!
Guy Fawkes Day arrived in the American colonies with the first English settlers. But by the time of the American Revolution, old King James and Guy Fawkes had pretty much been forgotten. Trick or treat, though, was too much fun to give up, so eventually it moved to October 31, the day of the Irish-French masquerade. And in America, trick or treat wasn’t limited to Catholics.
The mixture of various immigrant traditions we know as Halloween had become a fixture in the Unites States by the early 1800s. To this day, it remains unknown in Europe, even in the countries from which some of the customs originated.
But what about witches? Well, they are one of the last additions. The greeting card industry added them in the late 1800s. Halloween was already “ghoulish,” so why not give witches a place on greeting cards? The Halloween card failed (although it has seen a recent resurgence in popularity), but the witches stayed.
So too, in the late 1800s, ill-informed folklorists introduced the jack-o’-lantern. They thought that Halloween was Druidic and pagan in origin. Lamps made from turnips (not pumpkins) had been part of ancient Celtic harvest festivals, so they were translated to the American Halloween celebration.
The next time someone claims that Halloween is a cruel trick to lure your children into devil worship, I suggest you tell them the real origin of All Hallows Even and invite them to discover its Christian significance, along with the two greater and more important Catholic festivals that follow it.

Father Augustine Thompson, O.P., is an associate professor of religious studies at the University of Virginia.

Anyone who still doubts that the evangelical Christian world is going through a political revolution was not watching Pastor Rick Warren’s presidential forum this weekend. The era of reducing Christianity to a narrow set of ideological commitments is over.

Just a few years ago, who would have imagined that Barack Obama and John McCain would hold a discussion of this sort in a church? Who would have thought that the session would be moderated by an evangelical pastor who was emphatic in counting both the Democrat and the Republican as his “friends”? Who would have predicted that in such a setting, the issues of abortion and gay marriage would not dominate the pastor’s queries? …

In 2004, Warren took the view that Christians should vote on a short list of “nonnegotiable” issues, including abortion. But in 2006, on Fox News, of all places, Warren declared: “Jesus’s agenda is far bigger than just one or two issues. . . . We have to care about poverty, we have to care about disease, we have to care about illiteracy, we have to care about corruption in government, sex trafficking.” That is the new politics of evangelical Christianity.

Read the article then come back and let Eclectic Christian know what you think.

The following is a posting by C Michael Patton from Parchment and Pen that he has graciously allowed Eclectic Christian to repost here. I feel as if his “Centralist” position is one that really underlies that of being an Eclectic Christian. Emphasis has been added by Eclectic Christian for the purpose of clarity. (Thanks to Michael Spencer for pointing out this article.)

Being in ministry—being in theological ministry—the passions run high. You are going to say some wrong things and you are going to have some wrong things said about you. Such is ministry. One needs to develop some thick skin if they seek to surf these waters.

As a consequence of being misunderstood, you get mislabeled. One label that has been recently tapped on my back with red crayon is “minimalist.” What does that mean to be a minimalist?

Minimalist

One who sees Christianity as a system of belief that only recognizes the least common denominator. In other words, let’s just find out what all those who call themselves Christian believe and say that this is true Christianity and then let’s not talk about anything else. Talking about what divides, well . . . divides. And division is bad, bad, and double bad. Therefore, let’s just all get along.

Many of those in Pop Evangelicalism, the Emerging Church, and the Emergent church take this perspective.

From the standpoint of those who call me a minimalist, I represent a branch of Evangelicalism that compromises truth for conciliation in the name of ecclesiastical unity.

Stepping back and looking at this criticism, I can see where it comes from. I understand how people would get this impression. I do tend to encourage people to focus on the things that unite. I do tend to plead with people about the danger of talking past each other. I am even sometimes critical of militant apologetic methods that seem to deepen chasms, hardening others in an apologetic position that only focuses on what they are against, thereby losing perspective. However, I would not classify myself as a minimalist.

Let me introduce some similar terms that will help get a grasp on this issue.

Maximalist

One who seeks unity only with those with whom there is maximal agreement. Any disagreement, no matter how small it is perceived to be, does not take away from its importance. All issues are equal, or at least close to it.

Roman Catholics, some Eastern Orthodox, and Fundamentalists would normally share this perspective.

Centrist

One who seeks unity by finding areas of compromise. Taking the dialectical method, opposing positions are rarely correct, but the truth is found in a compromised center.

Many in the Emergent and liberal Church share this perspective.

Centralist

One who starts with the center of Christianity and believes that it provides the anchor from which all other conversation will find its ground. A centralist is focused on the most important elements of the faith so that the other issues can be seen in light of the perspective it provides.

Most in the Historic Evangelical church, some emergers, and some Eastern Orthodox hold this perspective.

It is in this camp that I can be found roasting marshmallows.

What is the “center” of the faith?

The doctrine of the Scripture? The doctrine of truth? Helping those in need? Social action? No. None of these in my opinion are the center of the faith. The center of our faith is Christ. If you want to say “the doctrine of Christ,” that is good as well. It is the person and work of Christ that is the center of Christianity. “Who do men say that I am?” is the most important theological question there is. If you get this wrong, all else will not only come undone, but it will be meaningless. If you get this right, there is a foundational unifying factor that we must recognize and in light of which all other issue must find their place.

Those who say that Christ is the eternal God-man who died for our sins and rose from the grave have more common ground with each other than they often care to admit.

Here are some differences between the four positions:

Maximalist: Let’s find all denominators.
Minimalist: Let’s find the least common denominator.
Centrist: Let’s create a new denominator that is somewhere in the middle.
Centralist: Let’s find the most important denominator.

Maximalist: We will militantly divide over all issues since all issue are of equal importance.
Minimalist: Issues that people disagree upon unnecessarily divides, therefore, let’s not discuss disagreements.
Centrist: Let’s all move more toward the middle ground, then we can get along.
Centralist: If we are united around the centrality of Christ, let all other issues find perspective in this agreement.

Maximalist: The truth is in the maximum.
Minimalist: The truth is in the minimal.
Centrist: The truth is in the middle.
Centralist: The truth is in the central.

Maximalist: Approach to Church history: All traditions that do not completely agree with us are anathema.
Minimalist: Approach to Church history: Find the minimal areas of agreement and form a new tradition.
Centrist: Approach to Church history: Use the dialectical method understanding history as a stepping stone to the evolution of truth.
Centralist: Approach to Church history: Find the central areas of agreement and recognize this commonality.

Maximalist: Non-essentials = essentials (there is no such thing)
Minimalist: Non-essentials = non-importance
Centrist: Non-essentials = everything
Centralist: Non-essentials should be put into their relative positions of importance to the degree that they affect the central issues.

I don’t believe in a minimalist or centrist approach to truth. Minimizing Christianity undermines the truth and strangles revelation. Finding middle ground compromises the truth.

Minimizing Christianity to the Glory of God? No. Impossible.

Centralizing Christ to the Glory of God? Absolutely. By definition, when we center on the person and work of Christ, God will be glorified.