Those of us in the EC (as well as many other movements, for that matter) don’t see it this way. It seems a little preposterous to us to expect that any two people- let alone an entire movement of people - are going to agree on every matter. And we don’t fear the apocalypse when two different opinions co-exist.

The bottom line is that the fundamentalist has a much longer, much more defined list of issues that must be agreed upon.

And because of the Hell question- taken in its most literal, extreme form - these people think that friendship and worldview agreement must necessarily go hand in hand. For them the consequences are just to dire to think otherwise.

Strange, but true. This is where the denouncement issue comes into play.

It looks a lot like a new secondary separationist movement. Like the middle school girls we serve here - they struggle with being friends with someone, because of who they are friends with.

middle school girls also write really long things on the internet….

Smiling in oregon,
James

But, it is about the content too, right? Like NC said - there has to be some context. Bell quoting Piper does not mean he agrees with everything Piper says. Bell quoting Wilber does not mean he agrees with everything he says either. But, like my example on Dave’s page, if you are using Buddhism to EXPLAIN Christianity, that is different than just quoting a Buddhist. Do you see what I am saying?

In any case, I identify with the post because I find the whole matter tedious as I am not so concerned with clarifying what ideas this or that author has ever supported in writing. Perhaps it is because I don’t subscribe to the notion that saving truth falls within strict parameters that I am obliged to monitor for myself and others. Is the world of ideas so perilous now? Am I uniquely suited not only to work out my own salvation, but also to be hyper-vigilant about everyone else’s such that I scrutinize sourcing? I think not, but for the person whom this is important (like maybe John Piper for example), I imagine it is paramount to know if an author strongly affirms those parameters and if it takes examining the sources that author cites than so be it.

I think there is a difference between someone (say McLaren) quoting a source (say Caulke on cosmic child abuse) and someone (Tony perhaps) being held accountable for someone else’s beliefs because they are a friend. I think that the first must inherently imply that they are in agreement on the subject,

Sweet, if this is true, Rob Bell quotes John Piper and even recommends his reading so then it’s time for people (like your friend Dave Marriott) to let Rob alone.

Back top the original post - as teachers and leaders of groups, isn’t to denounce, or publically disagree with others something that comes with the job? It doesn’t mean that you toss the friendship - it means that you differentiate your views and beliefs - especially if you are quoting someone - I think it prudent to disclaim that though you may disagree with much of what a person might believe, you find that a particular quote or story is hits a particular mark. Great! Go for it! Use it! But for heavens sake, as a teacher with a grand responsibility to your students, position yourself “under the umbrella” carefully and clearly!

“Mankind is divided into rich and poor, into property owners and exploited; and to abstract oneself from this fundamental division ;and from the antagonism between poor and rich means abstracting oneself from fundamental facts. ”

The same man who said this, also said:

“Gratitude is a sickness suffered by dogs.” I have no problem publicly denouncing Joseph Stalin.

It’s just not that simple…