‘Why We’re Not Emergent,’ by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck
April 7th, 2008
Over the weekend I read “Why We’re Not Emergent,” by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck. I highly recommend it to you. The book is an excellent primer on the emergent church and the theology of such emergent bigwigs as Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, Rob Bell, Leonard Sweet, Donald Miller, Peter Rollins and others.
I won’t give an in-depth review, and instead point you to Tim Challies’ review of the book. I will provide a few quotes from the book that I found to be especially insightful and interesting.
On emergents’ views about God speaking:
The emergent agnosticism about truly knowing and understanding anything about God seems to be pious humility. It seems to honor God’s immensity, but it actually undercuts His sovereign power. Postmoderns harbor such distrust for language and disbelieve God’s ability to communicate truth to human minds that they effectively engage in what Carson calls “the gagging of God.” For example, Tomlinson writes, “To say Scripture is the word of God is to employ a metaphor. God cannot be thought of as literally speaking words, since they are an entirely human phenomenon that could never prove adequate as a medium for the speech of an infinite God.” In a similar vein, Bell writes, “Our words aren’t absolutes. Only God is an absolute, and God has no intention of sharing this absoluteness with anything, especially words people have come up to talk about him.”
Such statements fly in the face of redemptive history and nearly every page of Scripture. The God of the Bible is nothing if He is not a God who speaks to His people. To be sure, none of us ever infinitely understand God in a nice, neat package of affirmations and denials, but we can know Him truly, both personally and propositionally. God can speak. He can use human language to communicate truth about Himself that is accurate and knowable, without ceasing to be God because we’ve somehow got Him all figured out.
On emergents’ emphasis on right living instead of right doctrine:
Besides being untrue, orthodoxy as orthopraxy is monumentally unhelpful. It sounds wonderful at first. Jesus is the best way to live. Where’s the harm in that? After all, it is true that Jesus taught good ethics and set a good moral example. But if orthodoxy means I live the right way, the way of Jesus, I have no hope. Where do I turn after I’ve screwed up the beatitudes for the fiftieth time? Where do I find peace when I realize I fail the Sermon on the Mount daily? …
Now, I’m sure many in the emergent church would also talk about grace, but I don’t read much about grace in their books. Certainly, there’s grace as a general inclusiveness, but not grace as the only hope for sinners deserving of God’s judgment. I despair when I hear Pagitt say, “The good news is not informational … Instead we have an invitation into a way of life — life we constantly realize is not ours alone.” If the good news is an invitation to a Jesus way of life and not information about somebody who accomplished something on my behalf, I’m sunk. This is law and no gospel.
On emergents and liberalism:
The biggest irony about the emergent church may just be this: For all their chastisement of all things modern, they are in most ways thoroughly modern. Many of the leading books display a familiar combination of social gospel liberalism, a neoorthodox view of Scripture, and a post-Enlightenment disdain for hell, the wrath of God, propositional revelation, propitiation, and anything more than a vague, moralistic, warmhearted, adoctrinal Christianity.
On emergents and politics:
American Christianity has at times sounded a lot like the platform of the GOP. Emergent leaders need to be careful they do not make the same mistake in the opposite direction. Emergent Christians shouldn’t position themselves as the neutral middle ground when their concerns read like talking points of the Democratic National Committee: racism, environmental degradation, militarism, corporate greed, poverty, Third World debt, overpopulation, consumerism, AIDS, and imperialism. …
The emergent church, like Protestant liberalism before it, is quite certain about God’s politics yet equally uncertain about God’s theology.
This book is well worth your time, and will help you understand a movement which is a cause for concern, because it too often abandons the gospel entirely.
I would encourage you guys to read a review of this book by Dan Kimball, a leader within the emergent church. Though better than other critiques on emergent in the past (like DA Carson), it still falls into the same trap of pulling out isolated quotes or views and using it as reason to judge the entire movement, rather than trying to figure out a well rounded idea of what emergents believe. Dan says:
[A]t certain times I felt they painted a one-sided perspective of what “the emerging church” believes about something when there are also other views within it. I did also share with them about some places where they wrote some things about friends of mine in the book whom I felt that they misunderstood by what they wrote about them.
Here is an example.
If the good news is an invitation to a Jesus way of life and not information about somebody who accomplished something on my behalf, I’m sunk. This is law and no gospel.
This is ridiculous. To say that Jesus is calling us into a new way of life is not denying grace or what Jesus did. He is just stressing that it is a relationship, a new life with Jesus, rather than a list of cold facts on a piece of paper. They are drawing conclusions that Doug is not saying, which cannot be mistaken for good writing and critique.
I hope you guys won’t take isolated quotes like this and form an opinion. The two best resources I can recommend to really help you get a grasp on the emergent church is this pdf article by Scot McKnight. The other is the new book by Tony Jones, who is the national coordinator of Emergent Village, called The New Christians. You can read my review of it here.
If you really care to know what the emergent church is about, check out those resources. You might find that the EC is still not something you think is positive and heathy, but at least you will have made a fair, educated decision. If you don’t care to really know what it is about, suspend your judgment as much as possible, because judging from bad information is unwise, in my humble opinion.
Thanks for reading!
Sigh.
We’ve been going through the sermon on the mount for a few months now and it has been incredible. This last Sunday’s was probably the most powerful sermon I have ever heard.
Pastor Ritch of Bethany Baptist
“www.bethanycentral.org”
addressed the very real danger of false prophets (he even named names) and how destructive it can be to the church when God’s word is abondoned for the feel good doctrine of the emergent church.
I must say that I have felt the temptation, even given into it from time to time, to water down the gospel in order to make it more palatable. The truth of the gospel is incredibly powerful and at the same time repulsive to the human nature. the emergent church movement is nothing short of false prophecy.
Steven, I’d be interested to hear what you consider to be a doctrinal issue that’s ever worth discussing.
Love God. Love people.
Coming out against the way other people “go to church” or “how they worship” isn’t doing that, in my opinion.
Instead, we preach against the way others preach and we judge those that have abortions.
Just saying. Perhaps. Just perhaps. If instead of screaming or yelling about such issues (picked those two because they have come up on your blog recently), we came to these people and actually talked to them we could get our point across better.
Cause you know God went around judging the prositutes and sinners of his time.
Oh wait. He showed love to them and had dinner with them.
Key word there, LOVE.
And because of that…they listened.
Steven you seem to neglect the fact that Jesus did in fact judge people for thier sins and instructed His followers to judge their leaders. The entire sermon on the mount is dedicated to what righteousness is; covering all the major doctirnal issues that preachers like Rob Bell and Joel Osteen seem to pretend not to exist.
I don’t mean to suggest that preachers in the emergent church movement are intentionally leading people astray but their intentions won’t amount to a hill of beans to the thousands that will follow them to the throne of judgement only to hear “depart from I never knew you.”
Thats dramatic, I know but so is the need of humanity for a savior. these preachers dress the wounds of the world as if they are not light, saying peace peace when there is no peace. Doctrine matters, having a right understanding of the depravity of man and the righteousness of God matters. Anyone who professes to not the basic doctirnal truths of who God is doesn’t belong in a pulpit.
Darn should have proofread that one….
Let me clarify
“Steven you seem to neglect the fact that Jesus did in fact judge people for thier sins and instructed His followers to judge their leaders (who are under scrutiny in this book). The entire sermon on the mount is dedicated to what righteousness is; covering all the major doctirnal issues that preachers like Rob Bell and Joel Osteen seem to pretend not to exist.
I don’t mean to suggest that preachers in the emergent church movement are intentionally leading people astray but their intentions won’t amount to a hill of beans to the thousands that will follow them to the throne of judgement only to hear “depart from me I never knew you.”
Thats dramatic, I know, but so is the need of humanity for a savior. These preachers dress the wounds of the world as if they are light, saying peace peace when there is no peace. Doctrine matters, having a right understanding of the depravity of man and the righteousness of God matters. Anyone who professes not to know the basic doctirnal truths of who God is doesn’t belong in a pulpit.
From my perspective, the emergent message is much more inclusive than the fundamentalist interpretation of scripture and the sermon on the mount. Since it’s more inclusive, maybe it can spread Jesus’ word to more people more effectively. Isn’t that the goal? Not that I’m taking sides. I’m just a neutral infidel in this matter
It’s just that what I see a lot of on other blogs and sometimes here, is the more conservative Christians shouting down the more moderate ones. The “liberal” Christians who believe in science, reason, and the enlightenment are either non-existent or silenced.
I just think that there is a place for listening to discussion.
I get so tired of close minded Christians who would rather beat you over the head with your own Bible and tell you it isn’t the right translation or the kind they read from in this church and therefore unbiblical.
That thinking has driven many FROM the church and from the gospel.
It drove me to almost quit church after college.
And that is just wrong.
Plain and simple.
Inclusiveness is a strange concept wherein Christian doctrine and cultural relativism intersect. To many non-believers and critics, Christianity’s seeming exclusiveness results in more than a few intense objections.
And yet, Christ came and died for everyone - a free gift simply handed out to an undeserving humanity blinded to our own need for salvation. In fact, the bible tells us Christ suffered and died so that NO ONE should perish but all would find everlasting life. That’s pretty dang inclusive in my book. All anyone must do is accept the free gift – accept salvation.
But Christ also said the way is narrow and few will follow. If salvation is indeed a free and inclusive gift open to everyone who would accept, then why on earth would anyone choose to walk the other way?
Perhaps it’s because we’re enamored with soft, cushy words and concepts - love, hope, inclusiveness, forgiveness, mercy. We cringe at Jesus’ ultimate example of self-sacrifice and squirm at the thought of taking up our cross and following Christ as the scriptures direct. We resist the idea of praying for and loving our enemies. And we especially don’t want hell to be real. We reserve special disdain for the possibility that, without salvation, the nice gal who daily serves us our latte’ and asks us about our family might actually go to hell.
So our solution? We create a kinder, gentler church. It doesn’t really matter if we massage a few doctrinal issues to make them more chewable or gloss over any bits of scripture that might make us uncomfortable. Welcome to the new “Church of Good Enough ” where it’s okay to miss the mark because our doctrinal bowling lanes always have the bumper guards up. To quote one of our leading theologians, Krusty the Clown, “It’s not just good, it’s good enough.”
The “liberal” Christians who believe in science, reason, and the enlightenment are either non-existent or silenced.
The emerging church is highly suspicious of science, reason, and the enlightenment, and frequently accuse mainstream/conservative Christians of being too beholden to these things.
A church / movement that focuses too much on people (feelings, emotion) is in danger of liberalism.
A church / movement that focuses too much on doctrine (making sure they’re right all the time) is in danger of Pharisee-ism.
Paul told Timothy to watch his life AND his doctrine closely…for in the balance of a proper view of man and a proper view of doctrine he would find his own salvation and the salvation of his hearers.
Jesus told the woman at the well that we are to worship in spirit AND in truth.
It’s not one or the other, friends. It’s both/and.
Very well-said, Bro. Tony.
John 6:66
“After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.”
The essence of John 6 is about doctrine and exclusiveness. Ultimately, the practices of the EC silence the Head of the Church by denying the people the hearing of His words. Apparently, you can discuss anything except anything God, Jesus, Paul, Peter or anyone of the other Apostles discussed. Hey, after the most violent example of church discipline ever (Ananias and Saph.) we see the church growing by leaps. The EC deny the sovereignty of God by assuming that there is something they can do better than obey the scriptures to lead people to salvation. A call to all those who heed the Word: Contend for the faith Just like it says in Jude, against the humanistic, mystical, and hedonistic practices of the EC.
Don’t know if it’s been mentioned but Rob Bell has never admitted to any affiliation with the ECM.
I posted a comment on this on the first day that is for some reason awaiting moderation. Tim, can you approve that for me?
Thanks
Nick,
I approved your comment last night. It’s the very first comment on this topic.
Love God. Love people.
So, you’re saying that’s all that Christianity is? I’m sorry Steven, but that’s a long, long way from the truth as revealed in Scripture.
The point of this book, if you’d take time to read it, is to examine the beliefs of the emergent church as they relate to the gospel. And that’s what’s at stake — the very essence of the gospel. What it means to be a Christian.
It’s too bad you don’t think such topics are worth discussing.
And it’s amusing how often you chime in to discuss matters that in your opinion aren’t worth discussing.
I refuse to back down when I have a stance on something.
I am sure there are more. I just speak out.
Otherwise you’d get a lot of attaboys on here and think you were absolutely right about everything.
And I will chime in until I am blue in the face saying that arguing amongst Christians is turning more people away to God than anyone else.
And no where did I say that Love God, Love people was all Christianity was. But it is two things God said we should do.
Amusing. Thanks. I suppose. I don’t really know what the proper response for sarcasm is.
I guess I will ask Donald Miller when I go here him speak this weekend here in Memphis. Should I ask him before or after I get my one way ticket to Hell punched?
Steven,
Other than not arguing, are there any doctirnal issues that are worth taking a firm stance on? You have alluded to worship style and Biblical translations as issues not worth arguing about. I certianly agree with you on those points. But what is worth arguing about?
What are the basic tenants of your faith on which there is no room to compromise?
Is there an objective standard of right and wrong?
Is man inherently sinful?
Is Jesus the Christ, fully God and fully man?
Did Jesus die and subsequently rise from the grave?
Is repentance and faith in Jesus necessary for salvation?
Will there be judgement?
Is Jesus the only way to heaven?
Is there a literal hell?
These are a smattering of some the theological questions whose answers are non negotiable. Simply put, if anyone doesn’t believe Jesus’ answers to these questions then they have stripped the gospel of its power and are worshiping a false god, no different than Baal. Anyone who teaches contrary to Jesus’ answers to these questions is a false prophet.
God has drawn the line, not fundamentalists, or reformists, or emergents or whatever label you want to apply to someone. The Bible leaves no ambiguity as to the answers no matter what translation you read.
Steven,
You are mistaken in saying that “arguing amongst Christians is turning more people away to [sic] God than anyone else”.
There is only one thing that turns people from God: Sin. That’s the reason 100% of the time. Any other reasons given are merely excuses to justify their rebellion.
Perhaps if you took a look again at what the Apostle’s quote fest in Romans 3:10-18, you will be open to the Lord’s correction on this matter.
Not sure what it means but there were 14 “I’s” in your comment.
Wow. Cool. Now my Christianity is being questioned. I must be evil.
Yikes. I am approaching this kinda like I would a very cold swimming pool - toe all outstretched - a little nervous to even touch it.
But I am seeing Steven get beat about the head and shoulders by a largely seemingly legalistic bunch and I find myself asking the question - “Is that not sin?” Laz says that sin is the “reason 100% of the time..” when people turn from God. So if this conversation made Steven turn would this not be sin?
See it’s a circular argument that gets us (Christians) nowhere. it does nothing to further God’s Kingdom and neither do these ever increasingly common arguments in cyberspace.
Seriously brothers and sisters - this hurts us. Bad.
You can count the “I’s” in Steven’s post but let’s snatch the plank from our own eyes - because by and large most of the posts here are rooted in a pretty me-centric origin. “I” believe this and “I” believe that. Am I wrong?
I have to applaud Steven for his stance and say I quite honestly agree with him. We’re beating each other down in the name of Christianity. We are beating other Christians down in the name of Christianity.
And that does more harm than help.
I just drove home and felt bad about the sarcasm in my last comment.
My apologies. I lost my cool.
But if you think Christians and churches today aren’t turning people off to God by what is going on inside the very walls of the buildings that we worship in, you have your head buried in the sand.
Amen to that.
I think Steven makes some good points. I have 2 1/2 theological degrees and love the church, but still think we’re doing a lot of harm in this world. Church does hurt and we’d be far better witnesses to admit it sometimes than to get defensive and start pushing folks who’ve been hurt and telling them do this and “you will be open to the Lord’s correction…” Perhaps there needs to be some correction both ways. Sin may keep hurt folks out of the church–but it may be the church’s sin as much, if not more than, their own at times. Folks can’t be hurt by something they didn’t at one time love. I’ve been hurt by churches–well-meaning folks who said wrong tacky things in times of grief, stupid church business arguments, people who wouldn’t be loving towards the non-Christians I bring to church weekly, staff members who fell into immorality, churches that failed to help the poor children I worked with daily, self-segregated churches in the South. Church can in fact hurt folks enough to make them stay away. I would have left the church 100x if that was the only picture I had of Jesus, so I can’t blame folks at times and think some of the talking and dialogue and just plain loving people is needed…. and frankly, I do think at times the church has sinned more than the people who feel pushed away by it. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells us to be reconciled with our brothers before we bring gifts to the altar (Mt. 5:23ff). It seems to me there are a lot of folks in the church showing up at the altar that should be out winning back those whom they’ve pushed away. We can be a kinder, gentler church without watering down the gospel–and that means being a church that presents the gospel as a means of healing and wholeness and reconciliation with those injured by Christians, knowing that at times it’s been treated more like a weapon to strike them down rather than bring them to Christ. Thanks, Steven. I don’t think you’re going to hell.
Thanks Tim. sorry I missed it.
If possible, I’d like to point out a few things that may or may not be cogent to these posts, but feel important to express nonetheless (I’m not trying to sound high and mighty at all either):
1 - We’re engaging in very intense discourse via a medium that removes all non-verbal communication from the process. Sometimes that’s helpful, but tone of voice, inflections, eye contact, hand gestures, sighs, and so forth all cease to exist in this realm.
We also lose the potential for immediate clarification of someone’s intent or meaning in a particular reply. Perhaps it would serve us better to start with the assumption that our motivations and intentions are decent and good, and any apparent slight is unintended.
2 - There’s a difference between arguing (something I personally believe emanates almost aggressive and combative undertones) and engaging in spirited, challenging conversation where disagreement is bound to occur.
Though the exchanges may be uncomfortable at times, if we assume each other’s motivations are good we can often prevent the unnecessary escalation of often unavoidable disagreements.
-just my two cents worth (more like two dollars worth)-
Thanks Lisa.
And know I am never after an argument.
I love discussion. And believe there is a potential for all parties to learn in the process.
One other point - Christ had plenty of people leave him because they didn’t like what he required of them - the church’s main thrust should never be about numbers.
It’s one thing if people leave a church because of false teachings and corruption. It’s another thing if people leave because they can’t stand in agreement with scripture. If we shop for a church who teaches what we want to hear, than we are worshiping a god of our own making.
Salvation may be free, but nowhere does Christ suggest that following him will be easy.
Nice Lisa - and I think that two cents (or two dollars) was well spent.
I like to be spiritually challenged and have always come away from any such discussions feeling better off in my relationship with God - he tends to use them to point something out to me most all the time.
Where I think Steven has an issue (and I do as well) is when we as Christians start going after other Christians aggressively and combatively like you mentioned - or even subtly and non-combatively. To me, its energy poorly spent.
I’d rather see us as a community of Christians step up - and harness that energy - and maybe look to James 1:27 and say “I am going to adopt an orphaned child” rather than say “I am going to attack a faction of my religion that doesn’t jive with me.”
That’s all. Energy wisely spent.
If something like 7% of Christians stepped up to that charge and adopted there wouldn’t be the global orphane issue there is.
Now that would be energy wisely spent.
i think it’s impossible not to feel some intensity discussing matters of faith. After all, we’re talking about our souls, our innermost spirit - not what wine we’d pair with veal!!!
You’re right in critiquing the medium, Lisa. That is just one of the downsides of the blogosphere. But, you take the bad with the good, right? Thanks for reminding us.
The point I want to make, I’ll repeat again, is this: hate on the emergent church all you want. Call us false prophets who are going to hell and all that if you must. But if you’re going to do that, get your information from good sources. I listed a few above. There is perhaps no more bad information floating around about any movement than the EC, so dont believe most of what you hear. Do the investigation for your self.
Out of curiosity, anybody checked out any of those resources i linked to, or have plans to soon?
Thanks.
Nick, you’ve pointed out one of our more interesting human flaws - lumping people/things into groups. Most of the time it’s for sheer convenience, but in cases like this - discussing subsets of bible-based churches (i.e. denominations) - it’s easy to slip into hyperbole and generalizations.
I was raised in a Free Methodist church. While traveling with my dad as he spoke at various other FM churches, it fascinated me how different they all were from one another despite living beneath the same doctrinal umbrella. To say all EC churches are doctrinally lacking is a generalization.
At the same time, when patterns emerge after researching large groups, sometimes it’s vitally important to point out those tendencies and differences. Heck, the Reformation involved just that - pointing out the differences between the popular church and scriptural doctrine.
I look at it like this: being missional, trying new things, determining where the church has made mistakes and how to change them are all great things. But, questioning the validity and sufficiency of scripture is a road to nowhere.
So if the emergent church can do all those things and wholeheartedly cling to the truths that Abe wrote about, it’s all good. As Tim wrote at the bottom of his post, if it abandons the gospel then there is cause for great concern, and cause for Christians to speak out against it.
Here’s a recent post from a guy named Mark Batterson in D.C.. I believe he would be comfortable being tagged “emergent”. See if this makes any of you “aquarium-keepers” feel any better.
http://evotional.com/2008/04/generational-trend.html
Steven, I’d really like to see you answer the question that both Abe and I asked you: What doctrinal issues, in your mind, are ever worth discussing?
On one hand, you say that you love discussion. But yet at almost every opportunity when someone says something critical about the beliefs of other Christians — no matter how kind they are in doing so (and the authors of this book were exceptionally kind in doing so) — you dismiss them as being divisive and turning people off to God. It seems that you think any objection raised is equivalent to “screaming and yelling” at other people, which is just silly.
Is it OK to say that Jehovah’s Witnesses aren’t Christians because they don’t believe in the deity of Christ? Is it OK to say that people who claim to love God and love other people — and yet deny the bodily resurrection of Christ — aren’t in fact Christians at all? Or is that just turning people off to God?
The ridiculousness of your question about Donald Miller notwithstanding, I’d be interested to hear what he says about hell. If he’s like a lot of emergents, I’m not sure he believes in it.
He’s speaking here in Memphis this weekend with a little music beforehand by Derek Webb.
I haven’t read the book. I would have no reason to call these people divisive.
But I know plenty of churched filled with Christians who were.
That is what I have a problem with.
Discussion is healthy if both parties are listening to each other.
Have you ever read Blue Like Jazz? It is a really good book.
I have read it. He’s a great writer. I thought the content was just OK overall, but his presentation of the content was excellent.
I have thoroughly enjoyed Blue Like Jazz as well - Mr. Miller is a wonderful writer. Being created in the image of God gives us all the capacity to present some measure of truth (lower case) regardless of our beliefs. That doesn’t necessarily make us purveyors of scriptural Truth (capital T). God’s grace often works in others despite us, not necessarily because of us (see Philippians 1:15-18)
-See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. -Colossians 2:8
If you guys appreciate Donald Miller as a writer, Searching for God Knows What is a must read. It is much deeper theologically. Check it out!
Nick, you’ve pointed out one of our more interesting human flaws - lumping people/things into groups. Most of the time it’s for sheer convenience, but in cases like this - discussing subsets of bible-based churches (i.e. denominations) - it’s easy to slip into hyperbole and generalizations.
Yes Lisa. This is one mistake we often make. The other thing we do is as bad or worse, and that is misquoting or taking a quote out of context. This happens all the time, including in the book mentioned, as i mentioned in my first post.
To give a purely fictitious example, let’s say that Al Mohler said “Jesus is the only way, and that’s all there is to it.” Then, someone came along and said, “I agree that Jesus is the only way, but that is certainly not all there is to it! We still need to love our neighbor and do all the things Jesus commanded us. It is Jesus’ desire for us to follow after him, and if we have salvation through him, but don’t live differently, we have missed something.”
Now, if you read this quote and knew what Al Mohler was saying, you would be inclined to chime in and say, “Al wasn’t saying anything about not needing to love people. That wasn’t his point at all, and you took it to mean something completely different than what he said!”
I think that is the worst thing we do. We, mostly unintentionally, misquote and twist the words of others, particularly those we disagree with.
We need to fight against this tendency, and give those with whom we disagree every opportunity to be clear. One way is by reading the actual works of the people in question, rather than what others say about them. Mostly we don’t really care what they are really trying to say, we are just searching for “sound-bytes” to rip apart. I’m talking to myself as much as anyone else, believe me.
As a close, I think it is worth considering what Scot McKnight says about book reviews, what we owe the author:
My promise: I will be fair to what the author says; I will focus on what s/he focuses on; I will tell you what I like and what I don’t like; I will not try to find random theological pecadillos and then excoriate him/her for his theology. To be fair to a book is to focus on what it focuses on and to see if it is sustained by the argument and evidence and to see if its conclusions are sound and the most probable.
Thanks for your time.
Nick that’s definitely true. But I don’t think that all the concern about EC is coming from misquotes and the like. There’s a lot of concern about heresy only because of statements made by people associated with EC.
Here is a link of McLaren statements: http://thinkerup.blogspot.com/2006/09/brian-mclarens-unorthodox-quotes_07.html
Some of them are just bizarre. I especially like what the author wrote at the end of the post.
I would love to hear your thoughts on these quotes.
Brian McLaren says of Alan Jones’ book Reimagining Christianity:
“…. Alan Jones is a pioneer in reimagining a Christian faith that emerges from authentic spirituality. His work stimulates and encourages me deeply.” (Brian McLaren’s comments on the back flap of Alan Jones’ book Reimagining Christianity where Alan Jones states the following about the Christ’s crucifixion: “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.” (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)
(Taken from the link The Zoner provided)
Ouch!
j razz
Oh, come on j razz. You’re just taking one quote and you’re taking it out of context. It doesn’t really mean what it clearly says.
I’m going to email Brian and see what he meant. I will get back to you all on what he says. Hold on…
j razz
Its hard to imagine what context you could take those quotes out of that would lead someone think that Brian McClaren really does understand the gospel.
Unless of course they left off the “Psych!!” at the end.
By the way Steven I’m still waiting to hear your resopnse in regards to what are critical components of the Christian faith, those that are worth discussing.
Why have I become the subject here?
What do you want me to tell you? What I think is in the Bible worth fighting for?
Well, there is certainly enough there to give you guys enough info to rip McLaren apart. My question is how many McLaren books have you guys read?
How many books by McLaren would I have to read and compare against scripture to ’safely’ form an opinion? Do I really have to listen to more than one Marilyn Manson CD to form an educated opinion regarding his beliefs and potential impact on my spiritual life? Or would that be taking things out of context and jumping to an unfair conclusion?
I’m not trying to be sarcastic - it just seems there’s some magical quota one must reach before a valid conviction or opinion can be stated - but that quota seems ever changing.
“Do I really have to listen to more than one Marilyn Manson CD to form an educated opinion regarding his beliefs and potential impact on my spiritual life?”
I have to agree with this. I feel the same way about the Bible and the Koran.
Nick I don’t think anyone is trying to rip McLaren apart. I simply asked you as someone with more knowledge of EC what your thoughts were on the quotes. I’m sincerely interested to hear what you have to say, but your last 2-3 posts have been digressions.
Cineaste, it’s more than your prerogative to have an opinion about the bible. However, in this case we’re discussing people who are writing/preaching/teaching on the Christ of the bible and the definitive guide from which those teaching’s originate is scripture. So, the issue isn’t whether you like or agree with scripture personally, it’s whether or not McLaren (and anyone else, for that matter), is teaching according to scripture and not just the ‘easy’ stuff, so to speak.
If I’m going to teach Shakespeare to a class I’m going to refer to the work itself and not the cliff-notes. If I use a supplemental text to Shakespeare, I’m’ going to make darn sure that the author actually knows what he/she is writing about before I presume to teach others from the book.
Then your comparison of McLaren to a Marilyn Manson CD is way off the mark. Lisa, it’s more than your prerogative to have an opinion about Marilyn Manson CDs. However, in this case we’re discussing people who are writing/preaching/teaching on the Christ of the bible and the definitive guide from which those teaching’s originate is scripture. You weren’t giving McLaren a fair shake in your comparison. I don’t think many evangelicals have a positive opinion of Marilyn Manson.
McLaren (et all) are teaching/leading others about Christ. The source for that is (or should be) scripture. If I or anyone else raises questions about his teachings/writings, the inevitable replies sound something like this: “you’re taking his words out of context” or “you haven’t read enough of his teachings to make that assertion”.
If I’m reading and studying the scriptures themselves, then I can recognize when someone’s writings/teachings aren’t lining up with the source - I don’t need to read three other books to make that determination just to avoid someone countering with the”you haven’t read enough” reply - thus my Manson comparison (for the record, i used him as a deliberately obvious example).
“I don’t need to read three other books to make that determination just to avoid someone countering with the”you haven’t read enough” reply”
Well then, that’s how I feel about the Bible. I don’t have to read James Dobson to determine that his writings don’t line up with the source. And, this still has nothing to do with Marilyn Manson.
okay, get off of marilyn manson then….
Gah! I was trying to get you to do that!
“Do I really have to listen to more than one Marilyn Manson CD to form an educated opinion regarding his beliefs and potential impact on my spiritual life?”
I have to agree with this. I feel the same way about the Bible and the Koran.
What was the purpose of your statement if not to envoke an argument with Christians? The Bible or the Quran’s validity was never brought up in this thread and thus your comment is off topic.
And you wonder why threads in which you participate end up getting the comments turned off.
j razz
“I have to agree with this. I feel the same way about the Bible and the Koran.”
“What was the purpose of your statement if not to envoke an argument with Christians?”
Don’t be so sensitive and defensive. I’ve given emergents like Nick far more challenging arguments to consider than Lisa’s. Go back to talking about McLaren if you feel we are getting sidetracked. There’s no need to be offended. I haven’t said anything remotely controversial.
“Why have I become the subject here?
What do you want me to tell you? What I think is in the Bible worth fighting for?”
I didn’t mean to make you the subject, neither am I trying to pick a fight. So your third question is most like my question to you, except I didn’t mean to imply that fighting is the appropriate response to false teaching.
What I meant, if I didn’t ask clearly last time, is;
What, in your opinion, does it mean to be a Christian?
I listed a couple questions that I feel are important in determining if someone is a legitimate follower of Christ. Not that that determination is mine to make on a case by case basis, however there are some consistencies which must be present in every believer.
I suppose my question could just as well be asked on Nick since he seems to espouse the EC philosophies.
Don’t be so sensitive and defensive.
You take too much liberty in your assumptions if you think sensitivity and defensiveness is the reason for my comment to you.
j razz
“You take too much liberty in your assumptions if you think sensitivity and defensiveness is the reason for my comment to you.”
If I am mistaken, then enlighten me.
your comment, cineast was way off topic and it seems to be an indirect assault on the legitimacy of the Bible.
You know the majority of people on this blog hold the Bible in the highest regard and don’t like it to be equated to the Koran. So, your off subject remark about the Bible and Koran was a pretty blatant attempt to rile people up.
Abe, you think saying, “I have to agree with this. I feel the same way about the Bible and the Koran.” is somehow inappropriate? How do you suggest I rephrase it then to make it more politically correct; so that it doesn’t offend your ears? I still think it’s a case of being overly sensitive and overly defensive. How can you expect to have a conversation with any non-Christian if you can’t even stand to hear their ideas?
What if you took this same attitude with politics? The majority of people on this blog hold the republican party in the highest regard therefore democrats ought to just keep their lips sealed? It’s not right to ask people to walk on eggshells for fear of offending someone’s else’s personal beliefs. This is what I mean when I said emergents are more inclusive of other people’s ideas. I may not agree with their ideas but at least I can feel somewhat comfortable talking with them about the differences. They are not as uptight as the orthodox church members (just my opinion).
Abe I give you my word, I didn’t say “I have to agree with this. I feel the same way about the Bible and the Koran” to rile anyone up. I said that to make a point to Lisa about McLaren and her Marilyn Manson reference. My comments were on topic and I’d prefer that we don’t get distracted further and go back to talking about the emergent church.
I very much admire their inclusive attitude over the exclusionary attitude they could have adopted. I’ve told Nick that I think the most important message Jesus taught was to love your fellow man. Sometimes I think Christians themselves lose sight of that. Heck, I feel more animosity than Jesus’ teachings when Christians find out I don’t hold their beliefs. The lesson I’m learning with this thread is that there are as many forms of Christianity as there are individual Christians. What makes one Christian? Well, that depends on who you ask.
I simply asked you as someone with more knowledge of EC what your thoughts were on the quotes. I’m sincerely interested to hear what you have to say, but your last 2-3 posts have been digressions.
Sorry Zoner. Been tied up for a few days.
You’re right, though. Those were digressions from what you asked. I was just looking to make the point about trying to figure out what a person was saying, because from my perspective it seems that is done to emergent folks more than anyone else, though I’m sure I’m biased.
To respond to your questions, and some of the quotes though, here I go. Let me first say that I don’t intend to get into a theological war here, you just asked for my response, so I’ll offer some general responses. Also, I’ll try not to respond to quotes on stuff I haven’t read.
As for the stuff on Hell, it is perhaps more unwise to quote from The Last Word… and the others in that series than other books because they are presented in narrative form, from the perspective of a pastor researching different topics as he goes through a crisis of faith. Not everything that is quoted in the book, or the opinions his characters argue for does he expect you to accept. He is just offering info for “Pastor Dan’s” rethinking process. To judge these quotes about Hell, you should really read the book.
Okay, and then take his comment on the book by Alan Jones. He endorses Jones’ book, saying that it stimulates and encourages him, but that doesn’t mean he agrees with everything Jones says. I would endorse books that i would strongly disagree with some of the content. There is plenty to critique McLaren for without making a loose connection like this.
Concerning the EC and penal substitutionary atonement, it isn’t that they deny PSA, just that they would argue that there are other ways to understand the gospel. Some would say PSA is THE only way to understand what Jesus did. emergents would argue with that.
If you want to get a feel for McLaren, Generous Orthodox is perhaps the best place to start. That book should give you a pretty good idea if you want to write him off as a heretic or explore more of his work.
Zoner, sorry I haven’t address much directly here. Is there a specific quote you would have me respond to?
BTW, has anybody made plans to read Searching for God Knows What by Donald Miller? It really is an amazing book.
Thanks!
Thanks Nick. I appreciate you taking the time to answer. In regard to endorsing Jones’ book, isn’t it kind of like saying Hitler had some good ideas? Maybe not on that level, but you see what I’m saying. He’s still endorsing the book.
Cine you watch too much tv or something! You seemingly have most Christians stereotyped. I don’t think anyone here holds any political party in the highest regard. Everybody let me know if I am wrong.
“Everybody let me know if I am wrong.
In response to Zoner. And, allow me the freedom to say what I think about the Bible and Koran without having to worry about offending religious sensibilities. Don’t take criticism of personal religious beliefs as an insult. Muslims took criticism as an insult when the Danish drew cartoons of Muhammad. I supported the Danish for doing so. I even went so far as to buy some Danish cookies to counter the boycott Muslims placed on Danish goods. Maybe that was an insignificant gesture, but it was a gesture nonetheless. The cartoons were meant to criticize Islam, not insult Muslims. If we feel free to criticize Islam, or emergent Christianity, or ancestor worship, then why not any other religious belief systems? In science, ideas are questioned and criticized relentlessly. If the idea can withstand the criticisms, then the idea is considered a good one. If not, then the idea is considered false unless new evidence presents itself. Law also works in this way. Beliefs need to be questioned and criticized to find the truth. If we never question or criticize personal beliefs and ideas, then WE are gullible.
Some would say PSA is THE only way to understand what Jesus did.
Who, exactly?
Cine, although I agree with you, I was merely speaking to the idea that Christians hold the Republican party in the highest regard. I know not one that does. If you were to say that more often than not Christians side with Repubs because the abortion issue, that’s different.
But otherwise I think most Christians feel hoodwinked (time and again) by the Republican party, unless their true aim is political power.
“Cine, although I agree with you, I was merely speaking to the idea that Christians hold the Republican party in the highest regard.”
Ah! okay. How’s this, “What if you took this same attitude with politics? The majority of people on this blog hold conservative values in the highest regard therefore liberals ought to just keep their lips sealed? I think that’s closer to what I meant anyway, Z.
Brian,
Would you mind clarifying the statement below? Is the stimulation and encouragement related to how Alan Jones views the theological notion that encompasses an angry God and penal substitution or were you taken out of context and take your stimulation and encouragement from other sectors of the book? Thanks for considering my question and I look forward to your response.
Brian McLaren says of Alan Jones’ book Reimagining Christianity:
“…. Alan Jones is a pioneer in reimagining a Christian faith that emerges from authentic spirituality. His work stimulates and encourages me deeply.” (Brian McLaren’s comments on the back flap of Alan Jones’ book Reimagining Christianity where Alan Jones states the following about the Christ’s crucifixion: “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.” (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)
Answer:
Hi, Jeremy - thanks for your inquiry. I recommend books that I believe will stimulate people to think. I don’t necessarily agree with every word in every book I recommend. I trust that people who read recommended books are interested in thinking, not simply blindly agreeing or disagreeing or finding fault. My personal thoughts on the gospel and atonement can be found in The Story We Find Ourselves In and The Secret Message of Jesus. I hope that’s helpful. Warmly, in Christ - Brian
j razz
good job J Razz.
Here’s a book I’d like to see written.
“Why we’re obedient…whether we’re emergent, reformed, or otherwise.” (by two guys who don’t deserve salvation).
Amen, Pastor Tony!
Jrazz,
That is cool that you emailed him.
Did you get the email I sent you?