What Emergents believe
There have been a lot of accusations thrown about recently by George and heartsick and a few other "anonymous" posters (who knows how many there really are) about what those in the emerging church do or do not believe. I posted this already in a comment but got no response, so I thought it might be worthwhile to put it up as it's own topic. This is an excerpt from the "Response to Recent Criticisms" published by a good number of high profile emerging church leaders (including Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, Spencer Burke, Brian McLaren, Dan Kimball, Andrew Jones, and Chris Seay). In it they clearly state that they all do still uphold the essentials of historic orthodox Christian belief. These are their words:
We would like to clarify, contrary to statements and inferences made by some, that yes, we truly believe there is such a thing as truth and truth matters – if we did not believe this, we would have no good reason to write or speak; no, we are not moral or epistemological relativists any more than anyone or any community is who takes hermeneutical positions – we believe that radical relativism is absurd and dangerous, as is arrogant absolutism; yes, we affirm the historic Trinitarian Christian faith and the ancient creeds, and seek to learn from all of church history – and we honor the church’s great teachers and leaders from East and West, North and South; yes, we believe that Jesus is the crucified and risen Savior of the cosmos and no one comes to the Father except through Jesus; no, we do not pit reason against experience but seek to use all our God-given faculties to love and serve God and our neighbors; no, we do not endorse false dichotomies – and we regret any false dichotomies unintentionally made by or about us (even in this paragraph!); and yes, we affirm that we love, have confidence in, seek to obey, and strive accurately to teach the sacred Scriptures, because our greatest desire is to be followers and servants of the Word of God, Jesus Christ. We regret that we have either been unclear or misinterpreted in these and other areas.
But we also acknowledge that we each find great joy and promise in dialogue and conversation, even about the items noted in the previous paragraph. Throughout the history of the church, followers of Jesus have come to know what they believe and how they believe it by being open to the honest critique and varied perspectives of others. We are radically open to the possibility that our hermeneutic stance will be greatly enriched in conversation with others. In other words, we value dialogue very highly, and we are convinced that open and generous dialogue – rather than chilling criticism and censorship – offers the greatest hope for the future of the church in the world.
We regret that some of our critics have made hasty generalizations and drawn erroneous conclusions based on limited and selective data. We would welcome future critics to converse with us directly and to visit our churches as part of their research. Of course, they would find weaknesses among us, as they would among any group of Christians, including their own. But we believe that they would also find much to celebrate and find many of their suspicions relieved when they see our high regard for the Scriptures, for truth, for worship, for evangelism, for spiritual formation, and for our fellow Christians – including our critics themselves.
Before anyone else makes assumptions about what leaders in the emerging church do or do not believe, perhaps they would do well to refer back to this statement which is "straight from the horse's mouth" so to speak.
posted by Mike Clawson at 3:47 PM
20 Comments:
This statement doesn't give me any comfort, I'm afraid, Mike. These men would like to make their "critics" appear to be hasty and uninformed in their analysis of their teachings. Fortunately, we now have years of articles, quotes, books, endorsements of others' teaching, interviews, etc., much to the contrary. If they don't want to be "misunderstood," then by all means...SPEAK WITH CLARITY AND CONVICTION!!!! We'll all know exactly what it is you believe and exactly what our response should be! Even in this brief statement of belief they are vague and very ambiguous in terms of doctrinal clarity. Again, and again, it is what they DON'T say that gives me great pause.
In digging deeper into all of this, it has only affirmed my initial concerns.
I find it interesting to hear from people who were hanging around the Emergent leaders in the early days. What are some of their perspectives, and why have they distanced themselves? They have had the privilege of knowing these men, conversing with them firsthand. I would say they'd be pretty informed.
For instance, here's this lengthy statement...
My Journey Into and Out of the Emergent Church
By Jason Carlson
"The growing influence of the so-called emergent church movement has generated much interest and debate in recent times. As a columnist for the Christian Worldview Network, people often ask me for my take on the emergent church movement. Thus, the purpose of this article is simply to offer my humble perspective on the emergent church movement, based upon my unique firsthand interactions with many of its leaders, many of whom I count as friends in-spite of my disagreements with them.
My initial entrance into the emergent church conversation came about six years ago while I was a student in seminary. One of the key figures in Emergent, the official title of the organization that is the primary voice for the emergent church movement, Doug Pagitt (Pastor of Solomon’s Porch in Minneapolis), is a close friend of mine. Doug had a profound influence on my life during his time as my youth pastor when I was in high school. Between my years in youth group and my entrance into seminary, Doug became intimately involved with many of the key movers and shakers who would eventually form the organization, or “generative friendship” as they call it, which is now Emergent. During these formative years of Emergent, actually back then it was called The Terra Nova Project, Doug invited me to many of the early gatherings of this group, it was at these events where I was introduced to and spent much time with people like Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, Pagitt and others.
During my interactions with my friends from Emergent, I was challenged both intellectually and spiritually through what I encountered, and I was really forced to wrestle with what I believe and hold dear. Over the course of about three years of fairly regular interaction with members of Emergent and participation in many of their gatherings and events, I became increasingly concerned over what I believe are serious deviations from biblical truth taking place within the Emergent “conversation” (how they refer to the movement). Many other commentators have drawn attention to these dangers within Emergent, but here are some of the key errors that I observed, errors that eventually led to my disengagement with the movement:
- A highly ambiguous handling of truth.
- A desire to be so inclusive and tolerant that there is virtually no sense of biblical discernment in terms of recognizing and labeling false beliefs, practices, or lifestyles.
- A quasi-universalistic view of salvation.
- A lack of a proper appreciation for biblical authority over and against personal experience or revelation.
- Openness to pagan religious practices like Hindu Yoga and incorporating them into the Christian life and Christian worship.
- Openly questioning the relevance of key historical biblical doctrines such as the Trinity.
- An uncritically open embrace of the Catholic and Orthodox churches.
- An unbridled cynicism towards conservative evangelicalism and fundamentalism.
- A reading of scripture that is heavily prejudiced towards a social gospel understanding.
- Little or no talk of evangelism or saving lost souls.
- A salvation by osmosis mentality, where if you hangout with us long enough you’re in.
- And many other things that I won’t get into…
Needless to say, today I no longer actively participate in the Emergent conversation. While I do maintain my friendships with many people involved in Emergent, I cannot openly participate in or support this movement due to my spirit’s uneasiness with the errors I listed above. I am not ashamed to call the people I mentioned above my friends, but friends don’t always have to agree; and sometimes the best thing a friend can do is to point out the error in the other’s ways. So, for now you could call me a friendly critic of Emergent.
How did I make it out of my time in Emergent to return to a solid Christian worldview? I owe it all to my parents who raised me with a deep appreciation and respect for God’s word and the truth it reveals. For as far back as I can remember, my parent’s trained me in a biblical Christian worldview. I was taught from a very young age to test all things by God’s word and I was regularly exposed to the writings and teachings of great Christian apologists and theologians like Josh McDowell, Norman Geisler, Ken Ham, and Walter Martin. Through reading solid Christian scholars and attending numerous high quality Christian worldview-training conferences, like Worldview Weekend, I was equipped with the tools I would need later in life to discern truth from error.
Parents, you cannot take lightly the influence that a godly, biblically based upbringing can have on your children! Each generation will be faced with their share of trials, tribulations, and errors which threaten the integrity of the church, but when our young people are raised up with a firm foundation in God’s truth, they will be able to discern truth from error and will have the tools they’ll need to overcome any challenge to their faith.
If you would like more information on Emergent and the emergent church movement from a solid biblical perspective, I would highly recommend D.A. Carson’s excellent book, Becoming Conversant with the Emergent Church.
This article was posted by Jason Carlson 2/26/06 at http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/
Or this much shorter statement by Marc Driscoll from his website....
"In the mid-1990s I was part of what is now known as the Emerging Church and spent some time traveling the country to speak on the emerging church in the emerging culture on a team put together by Leadership Network called the Young Leader Network. But, I eventually had to distance myself from the Emergent stream of the network because friends like Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt began pushing a theological agenda that greatly troubled me. Examples include referring to God as a chick (I read this quote from McLaren questioning whether we should address God as He or He/She--"heartsick" comment), questioning God’s sovereignty over and knowledge of the future, denial of the substitutionary atonement at the cross, a low view of Scripture, and denial of hell...”
The teachings these men mention are the very things I have questioned concerning core doctrines, and I have been told they have no merit. Well, hang in there, I have more quotes coming soon from the leaders themselves. Thought it might be good to start with a couple of quotes from men more learned and "in the know" than I am.
Blessings to you each,
"heartsick"
Hello all,
I have a question that is going down a bit of a rabbit trail, but I’m a little concerned about it. Why have several of the articles posted here, critical to e/Emergent also so critical of Orthodox and Catholic traditions? This has come up a couple times now (the previous article, the response to the Billy Graham posting a while ago, and somewhere else that I can’t remember) and I’m wondering why engaging our Orthodox and Catholic brothers and sisters is the same thing. I grew up in the CGGC so I’m not Catholic or Orthodox (although I’m a bit of a closet Orthodox) and I have my issues with their theology, but these groups certainly aren’t going down the emergent road and I don’t really see them involving themselves in these issues (the Orthodox especially). Is this just protestant fervor coming out or am I missing something somewhere. Please enlighten me!
Grace and peace,
Jim Wilder
#1: Point taken about universalism. Don't worry, I'm not going to say anything here at the blog that would violate my credentials with the CGGC. Since it's such a touchy issue around here I figured I'd just save discussion of it for a safer environment. (Never minding that "Heretic's Guide" does not in fact advocate universalism - at best a strong form of inclusivism. But I won't bother trying to explain. Just read the book for yourself. Which leads me to my next point...)
#2: I don't really care what Jason Carlson or Mark Driscoll or DA Carson have to say about the EC. Why listen to their versions of what EC folks are saying when you can go right to the source? I don't have any idea whether you guys, George or Heartsick, are informed or not. But many of your comments lead me to believe that you haven't actually read the "primary" sources. Have you? Or have you simply read what online critics of emergent have said about them?
Frankly, those critics themselves are not very well informed. Carson only read about six EC books before writing his own, and then refused to even sit down with EC leaders and have a conversation with them before printing his wildly inaccurate critique of them.
Driscoll on the other hand, does know the EC guys personally, and yet, given his own "issues", is hardly what I would call a credible source. (If you're not familiar Driscoll's modus operandi, he's basically a foul-mouthed, misogynistic, authoritarian, hyper-Calvinist - and that's based on what I've been told from friends who have actually attended his church or who have been burned by him in personal interactions, or from what I've read of his own talks and writings online - at one point he actually deliberately and publically insulted his one time friend Doug Pagitt by facetiously but mockingly implying that he practiced bestiality.)
As for Carlson, while I appreciate his perspective and points of disagreement, I still don't understand why one would bother with his critique when you can go straight to the source. Have you read Generous Orthodoxy? The Secret Message of Jesus? Church Re-Imagined? A New Kind of Christian? Velvet Elvis? If you have, great, give me your own critique and not someone elses. If you haven't, my suggestion is to stop letting others do your thinking for you and just go straight to the source.
Again, I don't know who here has or has not actually done their homework, but I have often encountered Christians who refuse to actually read McLaren or the others without Carson or other critics there to "tell them what to think about it"... and those were almost the exact words of my former senior pastor at the church we left because they weren't willing to even talk about our emergent ideas. Frankly, that inability to think for one's self simply flabbergasts me; especially in a pastor. But again, I make no accusations about anyone here; simply point out that I have seen it happen in real life experience.
#3: No George, my comment "Before anyone else makes assumptions about what leaders in the emerging church do or do not believe...." was not aimed at you. You've already stated your opinions about the EC. My comment, therefore, was aimed at anyone else that might come along and want to level similar critiques with actually taking the time to listen to folks in the EC firsthand.
And frankly, I only mentioned you and heartsick at the beginning of the post because of the demand that one of the "anonymous" posters made about actually naming names if we're going to critique what's going on at the blog. I named names because both of you have made comments at one point or another that are not actually true to what anyone in the EC that I know of really believes. (For instance, no one that I know of is an honest to goodness universalist.) I guess I'll just have to take your word for it that you are not ignorant or uninformed about the EC.
-Mike
Yes, I have actually read a lot of the emergent church writings, and I'm not just parroting someone else's thoughts. I have "gone to the source" as you say, and I've found it frustrating to nail down the emergent views on much of anything! Trying to snip quotes and paste them into a post is extremely difficult. For instance, I believe that McClaren's "The Last Word..." in its entirety crosses the line in both his interpretation of "hell" and who is or isn't going to be there. He buries his views in the narration of characters in his books so much that it's hard to pull quotes out to share. I know I can't get away with just criticizing the work as a whole on this blog now can I? But then, the rules seem to keep changing around here anyhow, depending on who is writing.
I now have about 6 pages of quotes I've compiled just this weekend that trouble me. Putting them into an intelligible post or two is going to take some assimilation. I just posted the thoughts of these two men as a starter, like I said.
I certainly don't agree with Driscoll's choice of language or some of his views, but then are those things we differ on really essentials???? Doesn't he believe in all the same core doctrines???? Shouldn't I still quote him as a brother in Christ????? Again, the double standards. I quote him to say that there are those who were around the movement for much of it's inception, and these are the doctrinal difficulties they have had to deal with within the movement, and these differences have caused them to distance themselves. Is this evidence definitive? No. Is it worth considering? Yes.
Your argument about going straight to the source doesn't hold a lot of water considering the sufficiency of scripture debate does it? Why read McLaren, or Bell, or Pagitt at all???? Just go to the source, the Bible, and we can forget this whole conversation ever started.
Inclusivism, by the way, still brings into question the "exclusivity of Christ" that I raised. The sticky tricky part within the Emergent Conversation is that they will usually not question the finished work of Christ on the cross bringing salvation to man, but they will bring into question whether a person has to actually have a belief in Jesus Christ in order to "be saved." Just more fancy dancing in my book....still chips away at the foundation of the core doctrine of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone.
I'm glad to still be a part of the conversation on this blog.
"heartsick"
Quote from Heartsick: Your argument about going straight to the source doesn't hold a lot of water considering the sufficiency of scripture debate does it? Why read McLaren, or Bell, or Pagitt at all???? Just go to the source, the Bible, and we can forget this whole conversation ever started.
I actually completely agree. As I stated in a comment not too long ago, my views on all these issues were not changed by McLaren, or Bell or Pagitt; they were changed when I came back to the Bible and started reading it fresh without all the layers of conservative evangelical theology that had been distorting my view of it over the years. As I said in a post on my own blog earlier this year: "Evangelicalism led me to the Bible and the Bible led me away from Evangelicalism. Evangelicalism led me to pursue truth, and the pursuit of it led me away from Evangelicalism."
And that pursuit has led me to the emerging church, though it's not that they convinced me of anything. The emerging church was simply echoing the same conclusions I had already reached after my own study of the Bible. What amazes me is how many people share that same experience in the EC. Few people say "I read McLaren and he persuaded me to join the emerging church." Almost everyone I know in the EC says something like, "McLaren put into words everything I had already been thinking." The fact that so many people are reaching the same kind of conclusions independently at the same is evidence to me that the Holy Spirit really is at work in the church to start something fresh.
But of course, that's just my perspective on it.
Shalom,
-Mike
I am probably not in a good position to speak to the issue of the Emerging church as a movement. When I first heard the term emerging pastor I thought is was a good desription of how many pastors look after years of church dinners.
However, I have read some of the source material and I am now reading a book called An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches (IVP) in hopes of getting a better handle on emergent and emerging.
What attracted me to this website and this discussion was the belief that the church as percieved by most people is not the church God intended--and that seemed to be what was driving the discussion here.
I appreciate what Mike had to say about his journey. It wasn't sparked but McLaren but McLaren can be a good companion on the journey.
My journey probably began in 1972 when I was exposed to a different kind of church when I was in France.
I had the sense I was traveling alone for quite a few years and recently I have appreciated finding others who are at least willing to talk. (And I hope are still willing to talk.)
I have some questions about some of what I have read in McLaren. I'm sure he would have some questions about me. Yet since I have often felt like the title of a book by Rousseau "The dreams of a lonely walker" (Reveries d'un promeneur solitaire)I appreciate the company.
Although I will soon qualify for the over 60 basketball tournaments I am still a new guy in the CGGC. The other groups with which I have associated would not have promoted a website for discussion so I find this blog refreshing.
Mike, Brian, George, Heartsick et al, meet you here later.
PART ONE:
I'm seeing the handwriting on the wall; if I don't get a comment made soon, it may not happen for a while, or ever. So, I'm going with what I've got to give at this point, brothers and sisters.
I have been charged with making accusations that have no merit. If my concerns aimed at the emergent church in the aforementioned areas of scriptural inerrancy and authority, the reality of a literal hell, and the meaning and exclusivity of Jesus Christ's atonement for sin have no merit, then I am in good company with some very respected leaders, who have spoken to and written way more than I ever could on the subject. At the risk of providing an incomplete defense of my remarks, I will include the following for your consideration.
I believe Brian McLaren to be an inclusivist, and I wouldn't be surprised if a few years down the line he ventured into universalism. I do believe that's where the majority of the professing church is headed in the future, based upon my study of biblical prophecy.
If McLaren is not an inclusivist, then he has been very irresponsible in his writing and his posting on the web.
First, the following excerpt from one of his books was posted on beliefnet...
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/173/
story_17371_1.html
I find this an interesting and inventive way for someone to present their view, in narrative form, burying his views in the dialogue and thoughts of his characters. Still, to me whether this work actually represents his views or not, I find it irresponsible and confusing, especially to the young people who will be reading it.
There are also the following quotes from his books (just a drop in the bucket)....
"We could talk about the inclusive tribe of God, for example: in a world of increasing tribalism, continually threatened by intertribal warfare and genocide, God is creating a barrier-breaking tribe that welcomes, appreciates, and links all tribes. This inclusive tribe isn’t an in-group that makes other tribes into out-groups; rather it’s a “come on in” group that seeks to help all tribes maintain their unique identity and heritage while being invited into a tribe of tribes who live together in mutual respect, harmony, and love -- because God is the universal tribal chief who created and loves all tribes.”
(Brian McLaren ,The Secret Message of Jesus [W Publishing Group, 2006], pp. 147-8)
(part 2 coming up....)
"heartsick"
PART TWO:
More McLaren quotes to consider....
"Tony [Campolo] and I might disagree on the details, but I think we are both trying to find an alternative to both traditional Universalism and the narrow, exclusivist understanding of hell [that unless you explicitly accept and follow Jesus, you are excluded from eternal life with God and destined for hell]." 5/08/06 “Out of Ur” interview
"My approach is a little different. Although in many ways I find myself closer to the view of God held by some universalists than I do the view held by some exclusivists, in the end I’d rather turn our attention from the questions WE think are important to the question JESUS thinks is most important...We obsess on “who’s in” and “who’s out.” Jesus, however, seems to be asking the question, “How can the kingdom of God more fully come on earth as it is in heaven, and how should disciples of the kingdom live to enter and welcome the kingdom?” 5/08/06 “Out of Ur” interview
"Most people aren’t willing to reopen these issues with an open mind, and those who do find the process painful and socially dangerous in many of our churches. In the end, I suppose I am truly an evangelical Protestant in the sense that I believe we must go back and search the Scriptures and look at them afresh and see if there isn’t something better than what we have been taught. Ironically, we could stand before God and have to answer for our judgmentalism and heartless attitudes that were, to a significant degree, consequences of a popular and longstanding misreading of the Scriptures on this subject of hell." Out of Ur interview 5/06 McLaren
“This is how I feel when I’m offered a choice between the roads of exclusivism (only confessing Christians go to heaven), universalism (everyone goes to heaven), and inclusivism (Christians go to heaven, plus at least some others). Each road takes you somewhere, to a place with some advantages and disadvantages, but none of them is the road of my missional calling: blessed in this life to be a blessing to everyone on earth.” McLaren ‘A Generous Orthodoxy”
“Universalism is not as bankrupt of biblical support as some suggest,” McLaren, “the Last Word...” p.103
“It bothers me to use exclusive and Jesus in the same sentence. Everything about Jesus’ life and message seemed to be about inclusion, not exclusion,” McLaren, The Last Word, p. 35
I think it bothers McLaren to use any definitive word to communicate his beliefs...period. And you can be sure that he knows what it is he believes. My fear is that he is "coming on slowly," asking some questions, opening up the dialogue, but that in reality he is leading us somewhere very specific.
I believe McLaren to be an inclusivist, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if he were to end up in the universalist camp in a few years (my own conjecture of course). However, it won't be called "universalism" by then. We'll have some new, very spiritual, very broad, and trendy word to call it by then.
I can't help but think of this verse...
“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” (2 Corinthians 11:3)
"heartsick"
PART 3:
On truth, scripture, and the gospel...
McLaren seems to believe that the church has not understood the real message of Jesus, that early on the church “twisted” what Jesus (and Paul) taught into a gospel of “justification by grace through faith, the free gift of salvation, Christ being a substitutionary sacrifice for…sin” (p. 91). That is not the gospel at all according to McLaren, the gospel is that “the kingdom of God is at hand” (p. 92). (“The Secret Message of Jesus”)
“I don’t think we’ve got the gospel right yet. What does it mean to be saved?... None of us have arrived at orthodoxy.” Brian McLaren, Christianity Today, p.40
McLaren said these are words (inerrant, infallible, or authoritative) related to a philosophical belief system that he used to hold. But he no longer believes the “Bible is absolutely equivalent to the phrase ‘the Word of God’ as used in the Bible. Although I do find the term inerrancy useful… I would prefer to use the term inherency to describe my view of Scripture.” “The Last Word” p. 111 McLaren
“The Bible requires human interpretation, which was [is] a problem…. How do “I” know the Bible is always right? And if “I” am sophisticated enough to realize that I know nothing of the Bible without my own involvement via interpretation….What good is it, liberals would ask conservatives, to have an inerrant Bible if you have no inerrant interpretations?…” p.133-34 “A Generous Orthodoxy” McLaren
Consider for a minute what it would mean to get the glory of God finally and fully right in your thinking or to get a fully formed opinion of God’s goodness or holiness. Then I think you’ll feel the irony: all these years of pursuing orthodoxy ended up like this – in front of all this glory understanding nothing ”(emphasis his) McLaren, Generous Orthodoxy, p.294
More to come....
I am having difficulty with posting these comments. Somehow, when I go to publish, 2/3 of what I've written is getting deleted. I'm pretty frustrated at this point, having to reconstruct what I've said, so forgive me if things don't seem to flow or seem disjointed.....
More quotes to consider...
“Ask me if Christianity (my version of it, yours, the Pope’s, whoever’s) is orthodox, meaning true, and here’s my honest answer: a little, but not yet. Assuming by Christianity you mean the Christian understanding of the world and God, Christian opinions on soul, text, and culture I’d have to say that we probably have a couple of things right, but a lot of things wrong, and even more spreads before us unseen and unimagined. But at least our eyes are open! To be a Christian in a generously orthodox way is not to claim to have the truth captured, stuffed, and mounted on the wall.”
––Brian McLaren , A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 293
“Perhaps our ‘inward-turned, individual-salvation-oriented, un-adapted Christianity’ is a colossal and tragic misunderstanding, and perhaps we need to listen again for the true song of salvation, which is ‘good news to all creation.’ So perhaps it’s best to suspend what, if anything, you ‘know’ about what it means to call Jesus ‘Savior’ and to give the matter of salvation some fresh attention. Let’s start simply. In the Bible, save means ‘rescue’ or ‘heal’. It emphatically does not mean ‘save from hell’ or ‘give eternal life after death,’ as many preachers seem to imply in sermon after sermon. Rather its meaning varies from passage to passage, but in general, in any context, save means ‘get out of trouble.’ The trouble could be sickness, war, political intrigue, oppression, poverty, imprisonment, or any kind of danger or evil.”
––Brian McLaren , A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 93
“How do you know if something is true?...First, you engage in spiritual practices like prayer, Bible reading, forgiveness, and service. Then you see what happens; you remain open to experience. Finally, you report your experience to others in the field of spirituality for their discernment, to see if they confirm your findings or not.”
––Brian McLaren , A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 199
McLaren seems to discount the Holy Spirit's role through history of revealing Christ to man and revealing His Word to us with clarity. I believe that the true Body of Christ has known and will continue to know the very clear and pure Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The last quote shows the way in which McLaren goes about discerning truth. What happened to not needing anyone to teach us because we have the Spirit to do that for us?
Last comment coming...
"heartsick"
Just a couple of quotes concerning hell...
“Tony [Campolo] and I might disagree on the details, but I think we are both trying to find an alternative to both traditional Universalism and the narrow, exclusivist understanding of hell [that unless you explicitly accept and follow Jesus, you are excluded from eternal life with God and destined for hell].”
--Brian McLaren ’s Inferno 2, Out of Ur, May 2006
“..we should consider the possibility that many, and perhaps even all of Jesus’ hell-fire or end-of-the-universe statements refer not to postmortem judgment but to the very historic consequences of rejecting his kingdom message of reconciliation and peacemaking.”
--Brian McLaren ’s Inferno 3, Out of Ur, May 2006
“The language of hell, in my view, like the language of biblical prophecy in general, is not intended to provide literal or detailed fortune-telling or prognostication about the hereafter, nor is it intended to satisfy intellectual curiosity, but rather it is intended to motivate us in the here and now to realize our ultimate accountability to a God of mercy and justice and in that light to rethink everything and to seek first the kingdom and justice of God.”
––Brian McLaren , The Last Word and the Word After That, pgs.188-189
Another important topic facing the church is homosexuality. McLaren has once again been as clear as mud on this issue. I understand the need for sensitivity, but that shouldn't take the place of the need for clear teaching on the subject within the church. Here are some of his quotes on that....
"I hesitate in answering “the homosexual question” not because I’m a cowardly flip-flopper who wants to tickle ears, but because I am a pastor, and pastors have learned from Jesus that there is more to answering a question than being right or even honest: we must also be . . . pastoral. That means understanding the question beneath the question, the need or fear or hope or assumption that motivates the question.”
--Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question, Out of Ur, Jan. 2006
“Frankly, many of us don’t know what we should think about homosexuality. We’ve heard all sides but no position has yet won our confidence so that we can say “it seems good to the Holy Spirit and us.”
--Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question, Out of Ur, Jan. 2006
Brian McLaren’s view on how we can “solve” the homosexuality issue within Christianity: No one is allowed to talk about it unless they have enough points:
“10 if you have considered and studied the relevant biblical passages
10 if you have actually read the six passages about homosexuality in the bible
20 if you have read other passages that might affect the way you read those six passages
5 if you have read one or more books that reinforce the position you already hold
25 if you have read one or more books arguing the opposite position
10 if you have spent three hours reading websites showing a variety of views
50 for every friend you have who’s been through an ex-gay ministry
50 for every friend who’s been through an ex-gay ministry that didn’t work
50 for every friend who’s gay and in a long-term committed relationship
50 for every friend who’s gay and not in a committed relationship
50 for every parent you’ve listened to whose child is gay
When you have 3,000 points, you can speak on the issue.”
--Brian McLaren , Generous Orthodoxy Conference: The Gay Forum, 2005
Wow, perhaps McLaren should run for office. Kidding.
The Bible is clear, and we should be clear...gentle, loving, respectful, but clear.
Getting long, so let me post another comment...
"heartsick"
Finally, I offer these snippets from McLaren. The first are some notes from slides of a PowerPoint presentation he gave at an emergent conference. They are available for download on the net. He is "defining", sort of, the emergent church....
“We embrace historic spiritual practices such as prayer, meditation, contemplation, study, solitude, silence.”
“We are committed to honor and serve the church in all its forms - Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Pentecostal.
“What if the dominant method [of]knowing truth is being replaced by a new methodology ...
“We name the disease: Excessive confidence ... Universal systems ... Totalizing metanarratives ... Absolutism”
“Accept the coexistence of different faiths ... willingly, not begrudgingly. Christian mission must be dialogical.”
“The “old, old story” may not have been the “true, true story,” and so we must continually rediscover the gospel.” (powerpoint slides from a recent emergent conference)
I also think it is important to look at who a person is promoting or endorsing. I'm not talking "guilt by association" but rather actual endorsements. One of the things that makes me think McLaren may eventually go "universalist" is because of his dust-jacket endorsement of Alan Jones' "Reimagining Christianity".
McLaren says this about Jones' book, “... Alan Jones is a pioneer in reimagining a Christian faith that emerges from authentic spirituality. His work stimulates and encourages me deeply .”
Finally, I offer these snippets from McLaren. The first are some notes from slides of a PowerPoint presentation he gave at an emergent conference. They are available for download on the net. He is "defining", sort of, the emergent church....
“We embrace historic spiritual practices such as prayer, meditation, contemplation, study, solitude, silence.”
“We are committed to honor and serve the church in all its forms - Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Pentecostal.
“What if the dominant method [of]knowing truth is being replaced by a new methodology ...
“We name the disease: Excessive confidence ... Universal systems ... Totalizing metanarratives ... Absolutism”
“Accept the coexistence of different faiths ... willingly, not begrudgingly. Christian mission must be dialogical.”
“The “old, old story” may not have been the “true, true story,” and so we must continually rediscover the gospel.” (powerpoint slides from a recent emergent conference)
I also think it is important to look at who a person is promoting or endorsing. I'm not talking "guilt by association" but rather actual endorsements. One of the things that makes me think McLaren may eventually go "universalist" is because of his dust-jacket endorsement of Alan Jones' "Reimagining Christianity".
McLaren says this about Jones' book, “... Alan Jones is a pioneer in reimagining a Christian faith that emerges from authentic spirituality. His work stimulates and encourages me deeply .”
Jones has this to say in his book....
“The Church’s fixation on the death of Jesus as the universal saving act must end, and the place of the cross must be reimagined in Christian faith . Why? Because of the cult of suffering and the vindictive God behind it.” (Alan Jones, Reimagining Christianity p. 132)
“The other thread of just criticism addresses the suggestion implicit in the cross that Jesus’ sacrifice was to appease an angry god. Penal substitution [the Cross] was the name of this vile doctrine .” (p. 168)
Forgive me, but a large portion of my comment was deleted once again. I'll try to reconstruct the last part....
One last quote from Jones....
“The image of the child Jesus sitting on the Buddha’s lap appeals to me and captures the spirit of this book. It is an image of the Kingdom. “The Kingdom” is a sort of shorthand signifying an inclusive community of faith, love and justice.” (Alan Jones, Reimagining Christianity p. 12) Brian McLaren endorses this book on the back cover! Is he ignorant of its content or in agreement????
Jones is part of the "Living Spiritual Teachers Project" along with a host of other religious leaders like New Ager Marriane Williamson, a buddhist monk, and many others. Read out their organization on the web. They are very universalistic, and I believe they are a mini version of what we'll eventually see in this world when all religions pull together and the great apostasy takes place.
My fear is that all of this is leading that direction, slowly, subtly, but surely.
I hope I have shown due diligence in providing the proof you asked for. It isn't an easy task, and I recognize we won't all come to the same conclusions. If you still believe that my accusations have "no merit", then I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
Blessings to you all in Christ,
"heartsick"
Sorry, there is some repeating in those posts, but I was having some technical difficulty and had to retype some things that at first appeared lost. Ugh. Technology....a great blessing, and yet, the cause of great frustration at times! :o)
Please forgive the repetition as you wade through all of that.
Thank you.
"heartsick"
Heartsick,
Hmmm, I guess from reading your McClaren quotes I must be completely in his camp despite my bible degree and conservative, bible believing church background.
On the exclusive/inclusive discussion, where exactly would that opinion of Christ's sufficiency put Abraham? Or any other OT God chaser? I don't have such a high opinion of our "mission" that I believe that any tibetan tribesperson who has never had exposure to Christianity and Christ, yet is seeking God, will fail to find Him. And if this puts me in McClaren's camp, then it puts me in the company of "some very respected leaders, who have spoken to and written way more than I ever could on the subject" like CS Lewis (I'm thinking of The Last Battle).
In all honesty, I think McClaren is a nutcase - he's looking at the world through an entirely different set of eyeglasses than most of the rest of us-which by the way is a definition of insanity {smile} - and from that different worldview asking some really interesting questions. Now, I may not agree entirely with McClaren, especially since I've only read Generous Orthodoxy and heard an audio of New Kind of Christian, but a lot of what he says resonates with the questions I argued over in bible school and the tough questions few people are willing to dialogue about in the churches.
Is it bad to ask questions you don't have the answer to?? I read in his hesitancy and illusiveness the feeling that he doesn't quite know what his answer is to the questions that are bothering him. Yeah, having recently been introduced to the concept that there's a whole group of people having discussions that I only used to have in my head or with select individuals, I have found it difficult to pin anybody down on what they actually believe. And I do think that's wrong, if that's all they will ever be. But if they are all in process and trying to find an answer, then how can I say "No, you can't have any more time - I need your strict theology now."
And how are any of them any worse or better than any other pastor out there? Each one has his/her strengths and weaknesses. It would seem from your comments that you believe his questions are his weakness? To speak from personal experience, how would that be better or worse than a pastor that treats women like chattel? Or uses his pastorate as a personal throne?
Frankly, I find inclusivity more "Christian" than foul mouthed hotheads.
I'm willing to throw away intellectual theology for a theology of the heart that loves God and loves others and trusts Christ to take care of the rest.
In love and with the view that God has to be more than just "Him" since He made us gals too,
Heartsick,
Those are all great quotes, thanks for sharing them. Personally I agree with nearly all of them.
A few points:
1) Of course Brian is an inclusivist... as am I, along with John Wesley, C.S. Lewis, and Billy Graham, among many other intelligent and biblical Christians. But what's so awful about inclusivism? Do you really want to claim that babies, young children, and people who die without ever hearing about Christ are simply damned to Hell because of circumstances beyond their control?
Inclusivism (the belief that salvation through Jesus can sometimes be applied to people without their necessarily having explicitly become "Christians") is not opposed to the exclusivity of Christ as the only way to God. It is simply opposed to the idea that salvation is exclusively reserved only to those who have had a chance to hear and respond to the gospel.
I like how the eminent missionary and missiologist, Lesslie Newbigin, described this kind of inclusivism:
"The position which I have outlined is exclusivist in the sense that it affirms the unique truth of the revelation in Jesus Christ, but it is not exclusivist in the sense of denying the possibility of the salvation of the non-Christian. It is inclusivist in the sense that it refuses to limit the saving grace of God to the members of the Christian Church, but it rejects the inclusivism which regards the non-Christian religions as vehicles of salvation. It is pluralist in the sense of acknowledging the gracious work of God in the lives of all human beings, but it rejects a pluralism which denies the uniqueness and decisiveness of what God has done in Jesus Christ."
2) You said:
"McLaren seems to believe that the church has not understood the real message of Jesus, that early on the church “twisted” what Jesus (and Paul) taught into a gospel of “justification by grace through faith, the free gift of salvation, Christ being a substitutionary sacrifice for…sin” (p. 91). That is not the gospel at all according to McLaren, the gospel is that “the kingdom of God is at hand” (p. 92)."
Let me ask you a question: which of those two versions of the gospel do you find Jesus preaching? (cf. Matt 4:17, Mark 1:15, Luke 4:18-19, 4:43, 8:1, 9:2, 9:11, 10:9-11)
3) You also said:
"McLaren said these are words (inerrant, infallible, or authoritative) related to a philosophical belief system that he used to hold. But he no longer believes the “Bible is absolutely equivalent to the phrase ‘the Word of God’ as used in the Bible."
First let me ask: where do you find in the Bible the words "inerrant", "infallible", or "authoritative" in regards to itself? If the Bible doesn't use those words about itself, then why are evangelicals, who claim to hold the bible in such high regard, so quick to add additional extra-biblical concepts onto what the Bible does already say about itself?
Second, if you do believe that "the Bible is absolutely equivalent to the phrase ‘the Word of God’ as used in the Bible" then what do you do with a passage like John 1 which clearly identifies the person of Jesus Christ himself as the Word of God? Why would we want to assign to a book (no matter how divinely inspired) the status that is accorded by that book itself to a member of the divine Trinity? Isn't that idolatry?
4) You also said:
"The last quote shows the way in which McLaren goes about discerning truth. What happened to not needing anyone to teach us because we have the Spirit to do that for us?"
Be honest with us: do you really believe that? Do you really believe that you personally have no need of teachers besides the Holy Spirit? Have you never received learning and wisdom from other faithful Christians who have instructed you? Do you really, truly, see no need for the practices Brian recommends in the selection you quoted (e.g. prayer, Bible reading, forgiveness, service, experience, discernment, and good counsel from other Christians)?
Frankly, I don't believe that you do. I think you are overstating your case at this point and disagreeing with Brian simply for the sake of being disagreeable. On the other hand, if you really don't see any value in any of those things as means for discovering God's truth, then I am truly flabbergasted, and I really can't think of anything more to say to you at all.
Personally, I think Brian would likely say that all of those means he listed are the specific ways in which the Holy Spirit leads us into truth. They are the tools God uses. It doesn't have to be an either/or.
5) When it comes to homosexuality, frankly I wish Christians would stop talking about it, at least until they've publically advocated just as long and hard against poverty, exploitation, and economic injustices as they have about sexual ethics. The Bible refers to poverty and economic justice over 3000 times, and to homosexuality only 3 (maybe 4) times. Until we can get our priorities straight and really care about the things God seems to care most about, maybe we should shut up.
But again, all this is just my POV, and I'm often known to be wrong...
Paz,
-Mike
Hey Char, I think we cross posted, and I think it's funny that we both said much the same thing.
In regards to McLaren being a nutcase, you're probably right. But I'm reminded of what Shane Claiborne has to say about insanity:
"If the world calls us insane, it is only because we are not insane in the same way that the rest of the world is insane."
:)
Read my husband's tshirt lately?
You think I'm crazy because I'm different,
I think you're crazy because you're all the same
Or something like that...
I have the same shirt. I think the exact quote is:
"You laugh because I'm different
I laugh because you're all the same."
Post a Comment
<< Home