Jonathan,
Thanks for adding another venue for this discussion…

I think in the way you framed it above that it's no problem. I dont' think there is a cookie-cutter approach to any of this, like most things. In community, where I know someone and they me well enough to wrestle with things like this I give thanks to God. I have had very close friends tell me point blank, “I don't believe God exists.” My reply to them, usually, is, “That's cool. God believes in you.” The difference would be, I think, if my friend were a pastor and was airing his concerns from the pulpit. If he or she got up and said, “you know, I don't think Jesus is God's Son,” I wouldn't just say, “That's cool” but I'd take issue with what he or she is wrestling with in a public sphere as a public figure. As I recall, Jacob was alone when he wrestled with God. He wasn't teaching others his doubts. This is not to say we need to keep them to ourselves but if, in this example (James), is truly wrestling and wondering than great – but that was not the take I got from his comments to me and our interaction (which no one can see cause he deleted all of it – it was quite extensive). He was arguing for this, not just asking questions and expressing doubts. Big difference, I think.

Jonathan,
Thanks for adding another venue for this discussion…

I think in the way you framed it above that it's no problem. I dont' think there is a cookie-cutter approach to any of this, like most things. In community, where I know someone and they me well enough to wrestle with things like this I give thanks to God. I have had very close friends tell me point blank, “I don't believe God exists.” My reply to them, usually, is, “That's cool. God believes in you.” The difference would be, I think, if my friend were a pastor and was airing his concerns from the pulpit. If he or she got up and said, “you know, I don't think Jesus is God's Son,” I wouldn't just say, “That's cool” but I'd take issue with what he or she is wrestling with in a public sphere as a public figure. As I recall, Jacob was alone when he wrestled with God. He wasn't teaching others his doubts. This is not to say we need to keep them to ourselves but if, in this example (James), is truly wrestling and wondering than great – but that was not the take I got from his comments to me and our interaction (which no one can see cause he deleted all of it – it was quite extensive). He was arguing for this, not just asking questions and expressing doubts. Big difference, I think.

Interestingly enough, I have a friend that is doing just what you have described above. Pretty sure Chad is speaking about this particular James.

Interestingly enough, I have a friend that is doing just what you have described above. Pretty sure Chad is speaking about this particular James.

I think it is wrestling with God. I think he would rather encounter pushback than a depressed inactivity. Kind of like the lukewarm thing that he evidently finds annoying.

Active engagement is always better than passivity in relationship matters.

I think it is wrestling with God. I think he would rather encounter pushback than a depressed inactivity. Kind of like the lukewarm thing that he evidently finds annoying.

Active engagement is always better than passivity in relationship matters.

Brandon, if your friend is James then I'm assuming we're talking about the same person.

Brandon, if your friend is James then I'm assuming we're talking about the same person.

Chad, I guess I just don't share your concern regarding James authority. I think people are smarter than that.

Chad, I guess I just don't share your concern regarding James authority. I think people are smarter than that.

Jonathan – What you say is very much the essence of my own experience. I was just saying that I have personally experienced a significant amount of transformation while being a part of the emerging convo – more than one would expect considering how long I've been a Christian and my age (both of those things typically create a more or less stagnant situation). The freedom, diversity and lack of a set of particular beliefs that I “should” adhere to actually served (I believe) to create more or better space for God to work in me. But what I believe was the most significant factor was that there are more people doing a better job of loving others as themselves in the EC conversation. It isn't perfect, but I've met a lot of pretty amazing people who have taught me a lot (mainly through how they live) about humility, kindness, grace, gentleness, love, compassion, generosity … in other words, they have taught me a lot about Jesus and it had little to do with doctrines or creeds.

Jonathan – What you say is very much the essence of my own experience. I was just saying that I have personally experienced a significant amount of transformation while being a part of the emerging convo – more than one would expect considering how long I've been a Christian and my age (both of those things typically create a more or less stagnant situation). The freedom, diversity and lack of a set of particular beliefs that I “should” adhere to actually served (I believe) to create more or better space for God to work in me. But what I believe was the most significant factor was that there are more people doing a better job of loving others as themselves in the EC conversation. It isn't perfect, but I've met a lot of pretty amazing people who have taught me a lot (mainly through how they live) about humility, kindness, grace, gentleness, love, compassion, generosity … in other words, they have taught me a lot about Jesus and it had little to do with doctrines or creeds.

There seems to be quite a history behind this brief post. I always say I wish I could hear both sides of a story before reaching a conclusion (ideally). But on face value, I don't see how you can compare the two. Wrestling and Denying are two very different ideas. More importantly, they originate from two very distinct places.

One comes from a place of contention, where you are willing to do “battle” so to speak, in order to realize the truth.

The other comes from a place of rejection where you are literally holding one's self back from the battle.

Wrestling is intimate. It is person to person. Sweat, tears, and pain…with a definitive result: Victory.

Denial is disowning and opposing without ever taking the steps necessary to reach truth.

There seems to be quite a history behind this brief post. I always say I wish I could hear both sides of a story before reaching a conclusion (ideally). But on face value, I don't see how you can compare the two. Wrestling and Denying are two very different ideas. More importantly, they originate from two very distinct places.

One comes from a place of contention, where you are willing to do “battle” so to speak, in order to realize the truth.

The other comes from a place of rejection where you are literally holding one's self back from the battle.

Wrestling is intimate. It is person to person. Sweat, tears, and pain…with a definitive result: Victory.

Denial is disowning and opposing without ever taking the steps necessary to reach truth.

James' has coined his wrestling A Creed of Negatives. He writes for TheCondition.net and attends our gathering. Sounds like him from the description you wrote.

James' has coined his wrestling A Creed of Negatives. He writes for TheCondition.net and attends our gathering. Sounds like him from the description you wrote.

Jonathan,
I agree, people are smarter than that – IF they are at least given the chance to see the sides in question. James told me that he deleted the comments because they were unproductive. I told him he ought to trust his readers to decide whether they were productive or not. Apparently he doesn't trust them enough to make up their own minds. I think that's problematic, especially for someone who claims to be a liberal progressive and who's mission statement on the blog is to walk with those they differ with.

Jonathan,
I agree, people are smarter than that – IF they are at least given the chance to see the sides in question. James told me that he deleted the comments because they were unproductive. I told him he ought to trust his readers to decide whether they were productive or not. Apparently he doesn't trust them enough to make up their own minds. I think that's problematic, especially for someone who claims to be a liberal progressive and who's mission statement on the blog is to walk with those they differ with.

I agree. There is a difference between wrestling with something and willfully denying something.

I agree. There is a difference between wrestling with something and willfully denying something.

I've often thought that the opposite of love is not hate, rejection or wrestling … which is the obvious pairing … but indifference. Indifference is the opposite of love … those who are impervious to God's love are indifferent to it and oblivious to any parts of it. Those who still care still have a foothold where it can grab them.

I've often thought that the opposite of love is not hate, rejection or wrestling … which is the obvious pairing … but indifference. Indifference is the opposite of love … those who are impervious to God's love are indifferent to it and oblivious to any parts of it. Those who still care still have a foothold where it can grab them.

Thanks Warren. That's is much of what I was trying to say.

Thanks Warren. That's is much of what I was trying to say.

Liz, I wonder how much of our denying religious backgrounds is our attempt to create that space. Its not meant to be destructive, even though it might look like that on the outside.

Liz, I wonder how much of our denying religious backgrounds is our attempt to create that space. Its not meant to be destructive, even though it might look like that on the outside.

MR, I first want to hear your perspective on this and validate it. I understand what you hold in terms of rejection.

But I also don't necessarily share it. And here's why. Denial is an active state that requires someone actually think about what one is rejecting. I'm not denying the state is active holding oneself back. But in denying something we still have to think about it. That's still wrestling to me.

Indifference is different. Its that state of rejection that has reached completeness. And maybe we are saying the same thing but in different timestates. The posts are in my opinion, active rejections that require mindshare.

MR, I first want to hear your perspective on this and validate it. I understand what you hold in terms of rejection.

But I also don't necessarily share it. And here's why. Denial is an active state that requires someone actually think about what one is rejecting. I'm not denying the state is active holding oneself back. But in denying something we still have to think about it. That's still wrestling to me.

Indifference is different. Its that state of rejection that has reached completeness. And maybe we are saying the same thing but in different timestates. The posts are in my opinion, active rejections that require mindshare.

Sonja, well said.

Sonja, well said.

Thanks Warren. That’s is much of what I was trying to say.

Liz, I wonder how much of our denying religious backgrounds is our attempt to create that space. Its not meant to be destructive, even though it might look like that on the outside.

Sonja, well said.

MR, I first want to hear your perspective on this and validate it. I understand what you hold in terms of rejection.nnBut I also don’t necessarily share it. And here’s why. Denial is an active state that requires someone actually think about what one is rejecting. I’m not denying the state is active holding oneself back. But in denying something we still have to think about it. That’s still wrestling to me.nnIndifference is different. Its that state of rejection that has reached completeness. And maybe we are saying the same thing but in different timestates. The posts are in my opinion, active rejections that require mindshare.

I think you are on to something – I was definitely searching/seeking God – I was meeting with members of the body several times a week, serving almost daily, reading and studying scripture, praying faithfully but I sensed that something was terribly wrong. It felt like I like I needed to go back to the beginning and start over – so I did.

I think you are on to something – I was definitely searching/seeking God – I was meeting with members of the body several times a week, serving almost daily, reading and studying scripture, praying faithfully but I sensed that something was terribly wrong. It felt like I like I needed to go back to the beginning and start over – so I did.

Jonathan (or anyone else),

Is there a point for you where you suggest to a fellow brother or sister that they have gone too far? Is there a point where you say, “No, I can't “amen” that”? At what point for you does “wrestling” become rebellion or just outright apostasy?

If I were teaching that Jesus Christ is the Easter Bunny, would you all just think it's cool or cute that I'm wrestling?

Ok, that may be a bit much. But you see my point?

Here is my issue: My hunch is that many of you, self included, would take issue and name as “wrong” people who sincerely believe that Jesus was for exclusion. Most emergents I know have no problem is saying Jesus is NOT about condemnation. Yet I find it hard to believe that any of us here would paint Fred Phelps and his “God Hates Fags” crew as simply people who are “wrestling” with their faith. Instead, we proudly take a stand and say “we are not THAT.” Jonathan, you have a great post here about Ken Silva and his tactics. No doubt we all agree that Ken is somewhere in left field, at least as it lines up with our beliefs and who we think Jesus is and about. Yet both Fred Phelps and Ken Silva along with people who think Jesus came to divide, not bring peace, etc., etc., are people who are simply living out their faith based on their beliefs about who Jesus is and what Jesus stands for.

In this post you did an edit at the end with a link to Jame's latest post. Can any of imagine providing a link to Fred Phelps' latest diatribe with the words: Fred provided a nice follow up post called, “Why I hate fags” that provides better insight into his wrestling?

I don't think any of us would. I know I certainly would not.

So this is my observation, please correct me where I'm misreading this: So long as people like the people we like they can say whatever they want about Jesus and we will call them “wrestlers” but if they don't like the people we like than their views of Jesus are heretical and they misinterpret the Gospel.

Jonathan (or anyone else),

Is there a point for you where you suggest to a fellow brother or sister that they have gone too far? Is there a point where you say, “No, I can't “amen” that”? At what point for you does “wrestling” become rebellion or just outright apostasy?

If I were teaching that Jesus Christ is the Easter Bunny, would you all just think it's cool or cute that I'm wrestling?

Ok, that may be a bit much. But you see my point?

Here is my issue: My hunch is that many of you, self included, would take issue and name as “wrong” people who sincerely believe that Jesus was for exclusion. Most emergents I know have no problem is saying Jesus is NOT about condemnation. Yet I find it hard to believe that any of us here would paint Fred Phelps and his “God Hates Fags” crew as simply people who are “wrestling” with their faith. Instead, we proudly take a stand and say “we are not THAT.” Jonathan, you have a great post here about Ken Silva and his tactics. No doubt we all agree that Ken is somewhere in left field, at least as it lines up with our beliefs and who we think Jesus is and about. Yet both Fred Phelps and Ken Silva along with people who think Jesus came to divide, not bring peace, etc., etc., are people who are simply living out their faith based on their beliefs about who Jesus is and what Jesus stands for.

In this post you did an edit at the end with a link to Jame's latest post. Can any of imagine providing a link to Fred Phelps' latest diatribe with the words: Fred provided a nice follow up post called, “Why I hate fags” that provides better insight into his wrestling?

I don't think any of us would. I know I certainly would not.

So this is my observation, please correct me where I'm misreading this: So long as people like the people we like they can say whatever they want about Jesus and we will call them “wrestlers” but if they don't like the people we like than their views of Jesus are heretical and they misinterpret the Gospel.

Chad, as I said on Facebook, no one is suggesting taking a way your right to speak up. I'm just suggesting that James is exercising his right to speak up and it doesn't jive with your understanding of orthodoxy.

Chad, as I said on Facebook, no one is suggesting taking a way your right to speak up. I'm just suggesting that James is exercising his right to speak up and it doesn't jive with your understanding of orthodoxy.

I think you are on to something – I was definitely searching/seeking God – I was meeting with members of the body several times a week, serving almost daily, reading and studying scripture, praying faithfully but I sensed that something was terribly wrong. It felt like I like I needed to go back to the beginning and start over – so I did.

Jonathan (or anyone else),nnIs there a point for you where you suggest to a fellow brother or sister that they have gone too far? Is there a point where you say, “No, I can’t “amen” that”? At what point for you does “wrestling” become rebellion or just outright apostasy?nnIf I were teaching that Jesus Christ is the Easter Bunny, would you all just think it’s cool or cute that I’m wrestling? nnOk, that may be a bit much. But you see my point?nnHere is my issue: My hunch is that many of you, self included, would take issue and name as “wrong” people who sincerely believe that Jesus was for exclusion. Most emergents I know have no problem is saying Jesus is NOT about condemnation. Yet I find it hard to believe that any of us here would paint Fred Phelps and his “God Hates Fags” crew as simply people who are “wrestling” with their faith. Instead, we proudly take a stand and say “we are not THAT.” Jonathan, you have a great post here about Ken Silva and his tactics. No doubt we all agree that Ken is somewhere in left field, at least as it lines up with our beliefs and who we think Jesus is and about. Yet both Fred Phelps and Ken Silva along with people who think Jesus came to divide, not bring peace, etc., etc., are people who are simply living out their faith based on their beliefs about who Jesus is and what Jesus stands for. nnIn this post you did an edit at the end with a link to Jame’s latest post. Can any of imagine providing a link to Fred Phelps’ latest diatribe with the words: Fred provided a nice follow up post called, “Why I hate fags” that provides better insight into his wrestling? nnI don’t think any of us would. I know I certainly would not.nnSo this is my observation, please correct me where I’m misreading this: So long as people like the people we like they can say whatever they want about Jesus and we will call them “wrestlers” but if they don’t like the people we like than their views of Jesus are heretical and they misinterpret the Gospel.nnnn

I wouldn't totally disagree with you that denial requires some level of thought. It is not blind, so to speak. People often know why, and can usually articulate why, they are denying something. Denying the existence of God is of course no exception. If anything, those denying God have often spend significant amounts of time developing their mindset.

What I believe must be called into question, however, is at what point does denial become, as you stated “completeness”. I would argue that the complete and final stage of denial is not indifference, as you suggested, but rather animosity and/or antipathy.

I believe in order to intellectually honest one must acknowledge, that while we cannot measure or know a man's heart (as God does), there is a point when active denial, when not fully motivated by seeking the Truth, becomes something quite different and harmful.

I wouldn't totally disagree with you that denial requires some level of thought. It is not blind, so to speak. People often know why, and can usually articulate why, they are denying something. Denying the existence of God is of course no exception. If anything, those denying God have often spend significant amounts of time developing their mindset.

What I believe must be called into question, however, is at what point does denial become, as you stated “completeness”. I would argue that the complete and final stage of denial is not indifference, as you suggested, but rather animosity and/or antipathy.

I believe in order to intellectually honest one must acknowledge, that while we cannot measure or know a man's heart (as God does), there is a point when active denial, when not fully motivated by seeking the Truth, becomes something quite different and harmful.

Chad, as I said on Facebook, no one is suggesting taking a way your right to speak up. I’m just suggesting that James is exercising his right to speak up and it doesn’t jive with your understanding of orthodoxy.

I wouldn’t totally disagree with you that denial requires some level of thought. It is not blind, so to speak. People often know why, and can usually articulate why, they are denying something. Denying the existence of God is of course no exception. If anything, those denying God have often spend significant amounts of time developing their mindset.nnWhat I believe must be called into question, however, is at what point does denial become, as you stated “completeness”. I would argue that the complete and final stage of denial is not indifference, as you suggested, but rather animosity and/or antipathy.nnI believe in order to intellectually honest one must acknowledge, that while we cannot measure or know a man’s heart (as God does), there is a point when active denial, when not fully motivated by seeking the Truth, becomes something quite different and harmful.

Jonathan,

In light of today’s most recent blog entry on this friend’s site, do you still think this is a good thing? http://thecondition.net/a-blog-from-the-outposts/

The post ends with this quote: “But I believe I have deconstructed my faith to the point where it’s now unnecessary.”

This is what I and others in emergence see happening more and more. I think it’s worth discussing and something leaders in emergence ought to think critically about.