Attack of the Squishy Straw Man by Tom Neven on 05/21/2008 at 12:05 PM

It's no secret that I have little patience for much of what passes for the "emergent" church. Part of my problem is that the movement is so hard to define and pin down -- often deliberately so. Also, the fact that you can't decide whether you are "emergent" or "emerging" tells me that the entire thing needs to be thought through a bit more clearly. And then the whole matter begs a simpler question: emerging from what?

Having said that, I must add that this movement, however you chose to define it and in some of its more lucid moments, makes some good points. It's in many ways a legitimate reaction to the superficiality and individuality that infect so much of today's evangelicalism. Many of these evangelical weaknesses are cultural manifestations of deeper theological problems. Unfortunately, most of the emergent reaction is strictly cultural, not theological, so, in a way, the emergent movement is just as shallow as the thing it critiques -- just shallow in a different way.

Another problem is that while some of the emergent critique is valid, a lot is based on bad thinking and unfair arguments. It's full of straw-man reasoning, mischaracterizing mainstream evangelicalism and then knocking down that false image, as if that somehow knocks down the real thing. Or it paints with too broad a brush. And a lot of it is just plain squishy, hard to define, hard to grasp, hard to pin down. As I said in The Boundless Show podcast, it's like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. (And for our Commonwealth friends, American Jell-O is what you call "jelly.") For a movement that critiques the shallowness of American evangelicals, a lot of the emergent movement is incredibly superficial itself.

A good example of this is a recent interview with Brian McLaren by the Associated Press's Rachel Zoll. If it were possible to grant emergents a Supreme Pontiff, it would be McLaren. (Yes, I know: screaming oxymoron alert.)

First comes the standard broad-brush, straw-man criticism that today's evangelicalism is too heavenly minded to be of any earthly good. In the interview, McLaren acknowledges that while evangelicals engage in some humanitarian work, it's done for the wrong reason and therefore does not work.

[This humanitarian work] is not working within the paradigm that a lot of Christians work, which is all that God is ultimately interested in is extracting souls for heaven. And we might do some good works here on earth, but we don't really expect any of it to work, because the world is sort of, the toilet has been flushed and it's going down.

This statement is breathtaking in both its error and its arrogance. I don't know a single evangelical humanitarian agency that says that its work is solely for the purpose of "extracting souls for heaven" (whatever that means). From the Salvation Army to Samaritan's Purse to World Relief to World Vision to Compassion International  to Blood/Water Mission and many others, these agencies work to relieve human suffering and to present the Gospel. McLaren not only doesn't know what he's talking about, but he sets up a false dichotomy between humanitarian work and evangelism.

But that's typical of McLaren. His attacks on evangelicalism -- indeed, his attacks on any claim to normative, orthodox theology -- are usually based on oversimplification. Here, for example, is his excuse for rejecting any claim to orthodoxy:

[L]ook at the Catholic Church: For all of its orthodoxy, it could have bishops covering up for molesting priests. And evangelicals, for all their claims of orthodoxy, can be barbaric to gay people and can blindly support a rush to war in Iraq and can be, as we speak, fomenting for war with Iran.

Does he really mean to say that the Roman Catholic Church's repository of orthodoxy, its catechism, advocates covering up child molestation? And since when does the abuses of some mean that the entire structure must be rejected? Such thinking is so immature that it would be rejected on your average middle-school playground. But it's typical of McLaren. He never really answers questions; he simply brings up something entirely different in a sly, Cheshire-cat kind of way. It's deflection to avoid having to say what you truly believe.

But McLaren has never much cared for precision. Try reading his books some time. You can go thousands of words and dozens of pages and still not know exactly what he thinks about something. And why be precise when you can resort to clichés and paint with a really broad brush? What need is there to think carefully and exactly about a topic when inept AP reporters and book publishers looking for big sales will let you get away with sloppy thinking?

And who, by the way, are all these evangelicals who are "barbaric to gay people and ... blindly support a rush to war in Iraq"? (And what, precisely, is a "rush" to war? Would he have preferred a mosey to war?) I know I am neither barbaric toward gays, nor do I support the war in Iraq. I know many, many evangelicals just like me. Yes, some people (evangelical or not) are "barbaric" toward gays, and some people (evangelical or not) support a rush to war. And some support the war for well-thought-out reasons. I happen to respectfully disagree with them.

But the key word is respectful. Because, in the end, McLaren does not respect anyone who does not think as he does. For all his talk of doing church and being the church, in his public writing and statements, he fails on one key aspect that Christ said would define us: our love for one another. It's one thing to lovingly correct; it's another to mock. McLaren is contemptuous of traditional, conservative evangelicalism, apparent in this AP interview and his other writing. He just smiles nicely when he mocks -- in his squishy, straw-man kind of way.

*Postscript: For you aspiring journalists out there, this AP article is a classic case of how not to conduct an interview. Nothing aggravates me more than when a subject’s answer cries out for a follow-up that is never asked.

Attack of the Squishy Straw Man by Tom Neven on 05/21/2008 at 12:05 PM

It's no secret that I have little patience for much of what passes for the "emergent" church. Part of my problem is that the movement is so hard to define and pin down -- often deliberately so. Also, the fact that you can't decide whether you are "emergent" or "emerging" tells me that the entire thing needs to be thought through a bit more clearly. And then the whole matter begs a simpler question: emerging from what?

Having said that, I must add that this movement, however you chose to define it and in some of its more lucid moments, makes some good points. It's in many ways a legitimate reaction to the superficiality and individuality that infect so much of today's evangelicalism. Many of these evangelical weaknesses are cultural manifestations of deeper theological problems. Unfortunately, most of the emergent reaction is strictly cultural, not theological, so, in a way, the emergent movement is just as shallow as the thing it critiques -- just shallow in a different way.

Another problem is that while some of the emergent critique is valid, a lot is based on bad thinking and unfair arguments. It's full of straw-man reasoning, mischaracterizing mainstream evangelicalism and then knocking down that false image, as if that somehow knocks down the real thing. Or it paints with too broad a brush. And a lot of it is just plain squishy, hard to define, hard to grasp, hard to pin down. As I said in The Boundless Show podcast, it's like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. (And for our Commonwealth friends, American Jell-O is what you call "jelly.") For a movement that critiques the shallowness of American evangelicals, a lot of the emergent movement is incredibly superficial itself.

A good example of this is a recent interview with Brian McLaren by the Associated Press's Rachel Zoll. If it were possible to grant emergents a Supreme Pontiff, it would be McLaren. (Yes, I know: screaming oxymoron alert.)

First comes the standard broad-brush, straw-man criticism that today's evangelicalism is too heavenly minded to be of any earthly good. In the interview, McLaren acknowledges that while evangelicals engage in some humanitarian work, it's done for the wrong reason and therefore does not work.

[This humanitarian work] is not working within the paradigm that a lot of Christians work, which is all that God is ultimately interested in is extracting souls for heaven. And we might do some good works here on earth, but we don't really expect any of it to work, because the world is sort of, the toilet has been flushed and it's going down.

This statement is breathtaking in both its error and its arrogance. I don't know a single evangelical humanitarian agency that says that its work is solely for the purpose of "extracting souls for heaven" (whatever that means). From the Salvation Army to Samaritan's Purse to World Relief to World Vision to Compassion International  to Blood/Water Mission and many others, these agencies work to relieve human suffering and to present the Gospel. McLaren not only doesn't know what he's talking about, but he sets up a false dichotomy between humanitarian work and evangelism.

But that's typical of McLaren. His attacks on evangelicalism -- indeed, his attacks on any claim to normative, orthodox theology -- are usually based on oversimplification. Here, for example, is his excuse for rejecting any claim to orthodoxy:

[L]ook at the Catholic Church: For all of its orthodoxy, it could have bishops covering up for molesting priests. And evangelicals, for all their claims of orthodoxy, can be barbaric to gay people and can blindly support a rush to war in Iraq and can be, as we speak, fomenting for war with Iran.

Does he really mean to say that the Roman Catholic Church's repository of orthodoxy, its catechism, advocates covering up child molestation? And since when does the abuses of some mean that the entire structure must be rejected? Such thinking is so immature that it would be rejected on your average middle-school playground. But it's typical of McLaren. He never really answers questions; he simply brings up something entirely different in a sly, Cheshire-cat kind of way. It's deflection to avoid having to say what you truly believe.

But McLaren has never much cared for precision. Try reading his books some time. You can go thousands of words and dozens of pages and still not know exactly what he thinks about something. And why be precise when you can resort to clichés and paint with a really broad brush? What need is there to think carefully and exactly about a topic when inept AP reporters and book publishers looking for big sales will let you get away with sloppy thinking?

And who, by the way, are all these evangelicals who are "barbaric to gay people and ... blindly support a rush to war in Iraq"? (And what, precisely, is a "rush" to war? Would he have preferred a mosey to war?) I know I am neither barbaric toward gays, nor do I support the war in Iraq. I know many, many evangelicals just like me. Yes, some people (evangelical or not) are "barbaric" toward gays, and some people (evangelical or not) support a rush to war. And some support the war for well-thought-out reasons. I happen to respectfully disagree with them.

But the key word is respectful. Because, in the end, McLaren does not respect anyone who does not think as he does. For all his talk of doing church and being the church, in his public writing and statements, he fails on one key aspect that Christ said would define us: our love for one another. It's one thing to lovingly correct; it's another to mock. McLaren is contemptuous of traditional, conservative evangelicalism, apparent in this AP interview and his other writing. He just smiles nicely when he mocks -- in his squishy, straw-man kind of way.

*Postscript: For you aspiring journalists out there, this AP article is a classic case of how not to conduct an interview. Nothing aggravates me more than when a subject’s answer cries out for a follow-up that is never asked.

Comments

[1. Christina (in green) said the following at 12:59 PM on May 21:]

1

Tom,

I agree with you completely.

I was discussing this Emerging church with my parents this weekend - I agree, there's a need for a reaction to the current state of the church...a reformation if you will...I'm definitly not appreciative of the tact that the emerging church is taking.

Their views of sound theology are a bit disconcerting.

[2. Matt said the following at 12:59 PM on May 21:]

2

"all that God is ultimately interested in is extracting souls for heaven"

McLaren didn't say that Evangelical Relief Organizations are only serving to bring souls to Christ.

He said, that there is an assumption within the Christian community that the only thing God is interested in is the # of people going to heaven.

You can disagree with that assertion, but that is what he actually said.

Also, McLaren is on the far left theologically of the Emerging Church movement. People should really stop using him as the posterboy for the movement. I think people usually do it because some of his beliefs are so far out there that people can then dismiss the Emerging Church as a whole.

[3. Michelle said the following at 1:01 PM on May 21:]

3

Thank you! When I was in college (just finished) a lot of my friends were super into this whole emergent thing. It drove me crazy. I could never even get myself into studying it for the sheer arrogance towards church members that I saw in them. To look down on them so strongly. The one good thing it did was blow up traits in myself to their logical conclusion... I was looking down on church people too. And I was so disgusted by them that I couldn't help but notice it in myself.

Other than that... emerging church stuff is really annoying.

[4. brx said the following at 2:00 PM on May 21:]

4

So, Tom... Have you talked about these things with BrianM personally or are you just trying to tear down a brother publicly? I'll bet you could have a drink with him off-the-record.

I suspect BrianM is evasive in answering with specifics because he's not aiming to make disciples of Brian McLaren; he's hoping people will hear some of what he says, look to the Gospels for the specifics, and end up following Christ. I think one of the things BrianM and other 'emergents' are so frustrated with is that many people follow a church rather than Christ.

Funny, I recently looked up Boundless articles on Bono/U2 because I was curious about Boundless' opinion. I found articles that pounded and articles that praised. Interesting. :)

Grace, peace, discovery & adventure to ya!

[5. Jordan Peacock said the following at 2:17 PM on May 21:]

5

while there is somewhat of an enclave expressed best by the typical talkers at Emergent Village, generally speaking 'emergent' is less a doctrinal statement and more of an attitude regarding how one pursues faith. Therefore you have Anglicans, Anabaptists, Pentecostals and other denominations taking some of the thought processes into their own spiritual communities for reinvigoration.

I read/write at Jesus Manifesto and many there are skeptical of some/all of what certain figureheads propose. But we do that for people across the board; mostly for emergent like because that's who we're closest to in many respects.

But in all honesty, I've never met two people within the same church who had identical theology and praxis. The differences between people claiming the term 'emergent' is largely because they acknowledge and wrestle with these differences, questions and concerns from within a sphere of continued faith.

Peace

[6. Eliza said the following at 2:20 PM on May 21:]

6

This is one topic I cannot stay silent on! (Although I suppose that's a ridiculous statement, since I cannot stay silent on a great many topics :P ).

Tom, my first impression is that your irritation towards McLaren and his ilk has caused you to 1) produce the same "standard broad-brush, straw-man criticism" that you accuse McLaren as presenting and 2) mock as contemptuously as you perceive him/them doing.

Perhaps you disagree, that's fine. I can only share my own perspective.

I, too, found that interview incomplete and frustrating and frankly entirely inconsistent with the McLaren that I know. Having read a great many of his books (the New Kind of Christian trilogy, Finding Faith, A Generous Orthodoxy and others), I think McLaren would be just as offended at the way those statements were presented as you are. I really encourage you to read what he has written himself rather than someone else's mutilation of his ideas.

McLaren has repeatedly called himself an Evangelical, and his own theological views are actually a lot more conservative than you might expect. He does not hold malice towards Evangelicals; the news just likes to stir up controversy. I think the so-called "attacks" that you see are actually personal experiences he has had, having been a pastor in an Evangelical church for a long time, and so the negative things he expresses are from his own experience.

Personally, if it were not for the words and perspective of Brian McLaren I would absolutely not be a Christian today. I happen to like the lack of definition in the "emergent/emerging" movement, but that's a personal preference, nothing more. McLaren & friends have SO much truth and insight to share, and I wish that Evangelicals would be more open to hearing it instead of feeling defensive. It makes me very sad to read columns like this, because every time it feels like a slap of rejection from my own Christian community.

If you personally think "emergent" people phrase things wishy-washy and deflect, that's fine. You have a right to your opinion. But why attack his character (and implicitly his salvation/godliness) as well as, by association, those who find hope in Jesus from their message?

[7. Eliza said the following at 2:25 PM on May 21:]

7

One more thing:

The article said that McLaren does not believe in absolute truth. That is FLAGRANTLY false! I point you to chapter 1 of his book, Finding Faith: A Search For What Makes Sense entitled, "Does it really matter what I believe?"

Answer, yes. You can sincerely believe that thin ice is going to hold you up, but that belief is still going to give you a cold bath. Right belief matters.

Please don't believe the lies and rumors people spread about the emerging church just to cause discord!!

[8. BDB said the following at 2:37 PM on May 21:]

8

The OP quoted:

>>[L]ook at the Catholic Church: For all of its orthodoxy, it could have bishops covering up for molesting priests.<<

You know, we could have an interesting discussion on the role of church discipline. One of my practicing Catholic friends noted that all of the allegations are 20 years old or older...his conclusion is that the bishops took action and put a stop to it, but did so quietly.

Someone I know in education confided to me how he handled a similar accusation a student brought to him decades ago. He went in and observed the teacher. He didn't see the behavior that was reported...but he saw incompetance. That was 4pm on Friday. By 8am Monday the public school teacher was gone, desk cleaned out, etc. It reminded me that in previous generations, they DID deal with things decisively, but it wasn't on cable news.

There's been plenty of Christian leaders that have fallen in one way or another. I remember when a pastor of one of our local churches was arrested. The next weekend, his wife and children came to our church; he was still in jail. What is our responsibility to those who are negatively impacted by the sin of another? Is putting it on TV the only Biblical response?

[9. Eliza said the following at 2:51 PM on May 21:]

9

BDB,

I live in Boston. These priests who were accused of molesting children (not adults, who even have a difficult and sometimes impossible time reporting sexual crimes) were still at those same parishes in those same roles 20 years later. Not in jail, not ousted, not anything. Cardinal Law, who oversaw the non-discipline, was promoted to a position in Rome.

That appears (note: I only know what any member of the general public knows) to be the definition of hypocrisy.

[10. Sylvia said the following at 2:53 PM on May 21:]

10

Brian McLaren teaches publicly and Mr. Neven is criticizing his public teachings.
This is not a case of a brother caught in secret sin needing the rebuke of one or two of his brothers.(Matthew 18)
This is a case of a man's false teachings being broadcast over various media, and those teachings needing to be shot down with reason and with scripture by people who love the sheep. (Galatians 2:14, Timothy 2:16-18 2 John 9-11)

Another issue: A brother in Christ is anyone who shares in faith that Christ paid for our sins on the cross. McLaren, when he does take a position, suggests that the cross is "cosmic child abuse" and wishes to downplay the atonement in favor of the discipline of living more like Jesus lived. I have good reason to believe this poor man is lost. I don't see much actual basis for calling him a brother.

[11. Eliza said the following at 2:59 PM on May 21:]

11

Sylvia,

PLEASE reference your quote that McLaren thinks the cross is "cosmic child abuse". I find that impossible to believe (unless he said he sees how some people could feel that way).

I feel like Ted Slater talking about global warming--needing to proclaim truth!! Who knew ;).

[12. Tim said the following at 3:30 PM on May 21:]

12

"Try reading his books some time. You can go thousands of words and dozens of pages and still not know exactly what he thinks about something."

I felt the same way when I read Rob Bell's "Velvet Elvis." I suppose it is no coincidence that Bell and McLaren are good friends. They write like each other!

I much rather read someone like Mark Driscoll who appears to be more doctrinally sound. Plus, he is a friend of McLaren's and the two of them go way back. Just last year at a Southern Baptist convention in September Driscoll warned everybody about McLaren, Bell, and Doug Padgett.

All these guys skirt and avoid answering the questions they raise. I know that McLaren thinks homosexuality is ok. That is a big red flag to me.

Now, I do agree that the emergent movement is raising some important issues. I just wish the majority of them taught sound doctrine.

[13. BDB said the following at 4:20 PM on May 21:]

13

Regarding Eliza (#9), I don't have access to enough specifics to be able to comment on what any one individual did right or wrong. I vaguely remember that someone from Boston was transferred to the parish right down the street from me, but in a capacity where they were no longer in contact with children. But I don't have the details.

In general, all organizations face governance issues. I read a report that no atrocities were committed under Rommel's command. He was a German General - but not a member of the Nazi party. The atrocities are commonly reported under the SS - which was not the professional military but were all Nazi true believers. This suggests pretty strongly that leadership matters.

Scouting faced the same problem. I'm saddened that all new scouts and parents now must review a booklet on molestation and sign a form that they understand what is not permitted. Aside from liability, they had to be pretty explicit in taking a stand. Some priests and parishs have done the same thing - making sure that everyone understands that there is a no-tolerance policy. Our church does things like ensure two teachers per Sunday School classroom, put windows in all the doors, implemented a "hallway supervisor" program during Sunday School, and separates certain bathrooms for kids that adults are not allowed in. Part of it is insurance-driven, but it's also to send a clear message. But these are management decisions, not theology.

[14. BDB said the following at 4:28 PM on May 21:]

14

Oh yeah - one more thing. In many states, disciplinary actions of employees cannot be legally disclosed. So, from a management/legal standpoint, care must be taken when deciding what to tell the public about a specific person. This is why paid administrative leave is used - it protects the organization from liability from the employee while they conduct the investigation. The worst part is, what do you do when you find weirdness but no evidence of anything unlawful? If you tell the public you fired someone for weirdness, that person has a huge claim against the organization for unlawful discharge and/or interfering with their ability to earn a living. If they get a severance package, they're gone, their liability to the organization ends, and it usually costs a lot less than trying to prove in court they did something unlawful.

[15. Josh said the following at 4:47 PM on May 21:]

15

Eliza, RE #11-->

It's in reference to the penal substitutionary theory of Atonement. If it is McClaren who said that (I can't recall if it was) he was commenting on that particular theory of Atonement, not the doctrine of Atonement.

[16. Tom Neven said the following at 5:05 PM on May 21:]

16

Eliza (#11)

McLaren says it in The Story We Find Ourselves In: Further Adventures of a New Kind of Christian, p. 143.

This book is a McLaren apologetic told in novel form, and he puts the words "cosmic child abuse" in the mouth of Kerry, not the first-person "I" of the novel. But significantly, Kerry throughout the book represents the positions that McLaren takes in some of his other works, so it's fair to say that "Kerry" in this book is in fact McLaren.

Others might see it differently, though.

And, Eliza, I've read a lot of McLaren. I find him quite frustrating. I've plowed through most of the major works of Kierkegaard, Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason," Descartes' "Pensees" and other similar dense works, but they're less frustrating because you know the author is at least trying to state something he believes to be true. With McLaren you can have no such confidence.

[17. Chin Wee said the following at 8:07 PM on May 21:]

17

Please don't be confused by the emerGENT and the emerGING church. The emerging church, consisting of people such as Mark Driscoll, CJ Mahaney etc., are very biblically sound, and they hold on very tightly to doctrines.

The emergent church however, due to their fear of confrontation, and their over-eagerness to embrace everyone (they say doctrines/creeds are divisive), skirts around the issue of truth, and never confronts it.

[18. Sylvia said the following at 8:39 PM on May 21:]

18

Eliza #11 It was careless of me not to cite any reference on that. (Thanks Tom) I also didn't mention that it was technically written in a "voice" although, honestly I see this more and more and I think its another squishy emergent trick to put out an idea that chips away at the gospel while not having the stand behind it. This all under the very condescending guise of "making you think". At any rate, I should have mentioned that too, and I am sorry that I did not.

Here is a link to McLaren speaking on hell and the atonement. The part about the cross comes at the end:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOUfsX2fbk

[19. brx said the following at 9:05 PM on May 21:]

19

RE: Sylvia (#10) [Eliza (#11), Tom (#16)];

Sylvia, you're misquoting context about the "cosmic child abuse" thing. McLaren put those words in the mouth of a fictitious character to illustrate a comon response that many non-Christians have to the idea of Jesus' substitutionary atonement. [btw, several _real_ athiest/agnostic friends have given me a very similar response when I try to explain; I've given up that method of witnessing to them because it's not nearly as effective as action].

Tom, no, it's not fair to say that "Kerry" in the book is in fact McLaren. That would not be reading critically. Maybe _was_ at one time - depending on McLaren's history of following Christ, but not likely now.

I've been following the emergent/emerging church idea for a few years now. My best definition so far is that it's one's "emerging" from a burdensome yoke of someone else's dogma/doctrine (religious or worldly, or worldly-religious) to follow Christ alone, to discover doctrine and orthodoxy fresh from the Bible and what God personally reveals.

I see McLaren's not giving direct answers as being similar to the teaching methods of folks like Peter Abelard. Answers that are given by man have less impact than those that are discovered from God.

Grace, peace & adventure.

[20. Sarah22 said the following at 9:44 PM on May 21:]

20

I am in no way taking sides as I don't know anything at all about the topic although the quotes in the article by McLaren are certainly disheartening to hear coming from someone who is supposed to be a fellow brother in Christ.

Anyway, after reading through all your comments it did make me think of a verse from Galations 5...my Pastor preaches a great deal about this kind of thing and I've only recently realized how important of a warning it is...and I have a REALLY hard time loving people who seem to have a really different viewpoint than I do about God but I have to love them anyway...

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. (Galations 5:14-15)

[21. Sylvia said the following at 2:46 AM on May 22:]

21

If the voice of "Kerry" was a lone example of the use of a voice taken out of context, I would withdraw the argument. The thing is Brian McClaren makes a habit out of taking heretical teachings and "just putting them out there" so to speak, so as to not take responsibility for them.
Even in the audio that I linked to, I notice that--even though he seems to agree with it---he cites the comment on the atonement as something opined by another anonymous preacher. He is clearly enthusiastic about it, but it gives him an out.
McLaren also heartily endorses books by authors who take the aforementioned low view of the atonement: ie Alan Jones in his book "Reimagining Christianity" the flap of which features McLaren's endorsement, and Steve Chalke and Alan Mann in "The Lost Message of Jesus"
Sure, you can go back and ask B-Mac, and he can tell you that he wasn't referring to THOSE parts of those books. He can always slip out of it. You can chalk it all up to some sort of Socratic dialogue, or the old "making people think". But at best, you have someone who isn't saying anything, so why bother reading him? At best you have someone a little irresponsible with what ideas he throws around, and a little careless in the materials he endorses. At best you have a guy throwing out random bad ideas under the assumption that you require being made to think.
At worst, you have a coward and a heretic, someone who goes around spreading bad doctrine, who when confronted with his deviation from orthodoxy always has a slick way to slip our from under it claiming that it was a quote, the exception, thinking out loud, something he personally hasn't decided on, etc, etc,etc. You have a guy who wants to slide into the mix and be considered a mainstream evangelical so that he can then go ahead and then, maybe, tell you what he thinks about homosexuality. what value he places on the scripture, who he thinks Jesus was and why he thinks He died.
If Brian McLaren knows what he is doing, then he is deceitful and dangerous. If he does not, then he is academically irresponsible and dangerous.

[22. Dan Gill said the following at 7:29 AM on May 22:]

22

I'm not familiar with McLaren, although I find his comments from the interview to be, well, wrong. But I had to chuckle when I read this:

"And why be precise when you can resort to clichés and paint with a really broad brush?"

[23. Sarah P. said the following at 7:55 AM on May 22:]

23

brx (#4) said, "many people follow a church rather than Christ."

That this can be true, I don't deny, but it seems strange to put "church" and "Christ" in opposition. How do you "follow Christ" alone? To love Christ and to love your neighbor as yourself are practically inextricable. The church multiplies the power of any one Christian to worship God through serving, giving, and loving. We are all called to be in community because each one of us is a part of a whole.

When you strike out by yourself, it is easy to get lost. I received a poignant reminder of that last summer in the form of a 45-page, single-spaced letter from a former acquaintance - in which he explained that I was a fool and detailed his seven-step process of life growth, during which he had realized that he knew more than his parents, then his church, and then everyone else. This guy was brilliant, quoting sections of Chesterton and Lewis from memory, but he was also turning paranoid.

An extreme example, but I think you get my point. I am glad to rest under authority, with the ability to sit back and measure my pastor's words against Scripture from my position of not having to be the one to formulate them. Makes me realize the deep responsibility on my pastors' shoulders and their own need to reach into tradition for authority.

No church is perfect. Never has been; never will be. So the solution is not to splinter off (unless the church denies a fundamental doctrine), but to work where we stand and trust in the grace of Christ to fill the gaps.

[24. Eliza said the following at 8:25 AM on May 22:]

24

Brx--well said! It's hard for me to be rational when someone who has had a major spiritual impact on my life is being condemned. I wish I could be more cool-headed about it.

Tom, is this just about being annoyed by McLaren's style? Personally, I know exactly what McLaren is trying to say in his books. I suppose it's because I've lived a similar journey to his and wrestled with the exact same questions he has. To someone who has been smacked up with black-and-white Christian "answers" their whole life and whose questions have been either squelched or dismissed, his honesty and humility (which I guess you somehow find arrogant?) is not only refreshing, it's an answer to a lifetime of prayers.

God uses all kinds of people to accomplish his work. Some people may find McLaren's methods exasperating; I find them to be extremely satisfying.

I am honestly really really trying with every cell in my being to feel like a part of the "Boundless/FotF" part of the body of Christ, (and be gracious and loving and all that), but I continue to feel rejected and alienated on a regular basis. It's just really sad, especially because I think you have no idea who you're kicking with your words while they're down.

[25. Sam Hunley said the following at 8:56 AM on May 22:]

25

TOM:

"Try reading his books some time. You can go thousands of words and dozens of pages and still not know exactly what he thinks about something."

I felt the same way when I read Rob Bell's "Velvet Elvis." I suppose it is no coincidence that Bell and McLaren are good friends. They write like each other!

My response: I read Velvet Elvis, and I found that not to be the case. Bell backs up almost everything he says with footnotes referencing scripture and other books, and he uses those footnotes to support what he has expressed. Basically, I think he is pretty clear about what he is saying. However, sometimes he doesn't necessarily come to conclusions, but that was the intention of the book. He states in the introduction that he is not going to answer all of the question. Rather, he wished to encourage people to think about different aspects of the Christian faith in a new manner.

[26. Sarah P. said the following at 9:36 AM on May 22:]

26

Eliza (#24): I am planning to go find some McLaren to read now, in order to see what I think. But it does seem a little hard to "emerge" and separate yourself consciously from another body and then still expect it to agree with you - to disagree hotly with what others say and expect them immediately to fall in with your opinion. That's like the adolescent who is always shouting at his parents and storming into his room and then coming downstairs for a home-cooked meal at dinnertime.

Questions that stem from pain are always valid, but sometimes there are no answers in this life, and that is valid too. Thus God's final answer to Job. There is no need to be mad at other humans because they can't stop your insides from hurting.

[27. Ronnica said the following at 10:18 AM on May 22:]

27

Awesome post. You've brought to light many aspects of the emergent/emerging church movement that irritate me. Also, I appreciate as you do that they are bringing up some good points about problems in mainstream evangelicialism, I just don't agree with most of their answers.

[28. Jo said the following at 10:37 AM on May 22:]

28

Eliza:
I feel for you. You're part of the body of Christ whether you 'fit in' with Boundless/FOTF or not. And remember that a disagreement (even a strong one) with a view that you raise doesn't equal a rejection of you or your faith. God does use a lot of different avenues to bring people to him. Even if the concerns of people on here about the emergent church are justified, no one can tell you that the route God chose to bring you to him is invalid. And I for one really value your comments on here. :)

Also, I know nothing about the emergent church (hasn't reached the UK yet possibly?) but it strikes me that Jesus himself rarely spoke in direct terms...

[29. Eliza said the following at 10:43 AM on May 22:]

29

Sarah P.

I already said that McLaren did indeed provide answers to questions that others had not. I'm not expecting people to agree with me, I'm just expecting (hoping) for some understanding and acceptance. I'm not having a temper tantrum--I'm really trying to find my place in the body of Christ.

[30. Amir Larijani said the following at 11:55 AM on May 22:]

30

Seems like McLaren is dogmatically opposed to orthodoxy.

That makes him an unorthodox dogmatic. Which, come to think of it, is at least is bad--if not worse--than the orthodox variety.

[31. brx said the following at 1:06 PM on May 22:]

31

Sarah P. (#23) wrote:

"...it seems strange to put "church" and "Christ" in opposition. How do you "follow Christ" alone? To love Christ and to love your neighbor as yourself are practically inextricable. The church..."

I think we agree; I realize now those words "follow Christ alone" were a little ambiguous. What I meant is to follow Christ and no other person or dogma. (I also use little "church" to denote a local gathering - and these days, "church" does not necessarily mean "Christ-centered") When one accepts and follows Christ, they become, inescapably, a part of His Church. But, so often, even as believers, we can get caught up in our own weaknesses & insecurities and end up hiding behind other authorities, boasting of their perfection and dogma rather than trusting in knowing Christ personally.

For me, it was a hard thing to realize the other people and pastors in church leadership, though some are higher in earthly authority, have all the same weaknesses and struggles that I do. They are just fellow followers of Christ, trying to use their gifts, passions, and abilities to serve the best they know how - and all the while still making mistakes and growing. I whole-heartedly agree that God designed us for intimate community - and He gives me courage to pursue that both in and outside of the local Christ-centered gatherings.

God has gifted me in certain ways and with certain perspectives to reach some for the Kingdom while He has gifted CJ Mahaney, Brian McLaren, and Joshua Casteel with slightly different abilities and perspectives to reach others for His Kingdom.

It's a journey and an adventure!
Grace & peace on the way.

[32. brx said the following at 1:40 PM on May 22:]

32

Jo (#28) wrote:

"...emergent church (hasn't reached the UK yet possibly?)..."

Really? A few years ago, I served with an amazing worship singer/song writer who had been involved in a really neat ministry in England that sounded kind of emergent. I think it was called butterfly... something. Anywho, I often think of evangelism in the UK as 'emergent' style because if I recall correctly, it was a couple of UK students (and prayers of many others) that started InterVarsity Christian fellowship decades ago in North America.

Jo (#28) also wrote:

"...but it strikes me that Jesus himself rarely spoke in direct terms..."

Yeah, and He often confounded and frustrated the 'church-people' and church leaders of the day. Many of Jesus' words did not fit easily within their neatly constructed doctrines. But, the people on the outside got it. ...and were welcomed, healed, made clean, and restored. No, BrianM is not Jesus, but I do think he has been empowered by Him.

Grace, peace & adventure!

[33. ScottW said the following at 1:51 PM on May 22:]

33

Hi Eliza,

I have to agree with Tom about his assessment of the emerging church, at least sections of it. I haven't much of McLaren but I hope to in the near future. I have read Bell and he doesn't impress me. He has a few good thoughts in Velvit Elvis, but nothing to honestly make the book worthwhile.

But I don't want to sit around and not try to understand. You say you understand McLaren, so maybe you can help us out. I grabbed this quote from Tom's earlier post by McLaren:
"I must add, though, that I don't believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts. ... I don't hope all Jews or Hindus will become members of the Christian religion. But I do hope all who feel so called will become Jewish or Hindu followers of Jesus."

Can you help us here understand a little more what he is trying to say?

[34. Jim H said the following at 2:19 PM on May 22:]

34

Amir #31.
What do you mean about orthodox dogmatics being almost as bad as unorthodox dogmatics? Are we not to be dogmatic about the essential truths of the Christian faith such as Christ being the only means of salvation, his substitutionary Atonement on the Cross, our justification before God by the imputation of His righteousness to us?

I amd VERY dogmatic about these essentials.

[35. Jo said the following at 2:56 PM on May 22:]

35

brx:
Hmmm, I've never heard of Butterfly something. :) Perhaps there's a difference in terminology then, I've certainly not heard the term 'emergent' to describe any church movement over here, but as I said I know nothing about the emergent church in America so it's possible it is over here under a different name!

In fact, could anyone (maybe you or Eliza) clarify what defines 'emergent' and separates it from mainstream evangelical..? (No replies of 'heresy' please...)

"He often confounded and frustrated the 'church-people' and church leaders of the day. Many of Jesus' words did not fit easily within their neatly constructed doctrines."

Indeed. I find much of life doesn't fit easily within our neatly constructed doctrines, and challenging orthodoxy, even at what seems the most basic level, is very healthy... so long as it comes from a foundation of faith in Jesus and a real desire to serve and honour God in the best way we can. There's a fine line though between promoting the idea that we might sometimes be wrong, and that God might be a lot bigger than the boxes we put him in, and an acceptance of wrong theology on the really important stuff. It's tricky terrain to navigate I think.

[36. BDB said the following at 3:03 PM on May 22:]

36

I don't think I've been to any emergent or emerging church services. But the discussion reminds me of something that happened almost 40 years ago. Suddenly, a bunch of hippies started showing up in church. This was the Jesus Movement.

Personally, I can't help but think that there were a bunch of intercessors who felt that praying for revival amonst the hippies was the best solution. It worked. Some of the regular church folks were not happy - they asked their pastor to pick between the regular church or the hippies. One pastor chose to disciple the hippies.

Perhaps you've heard of Calvary Chapel. I notice a pattern in church history - first God awakens the hearts of a new generation of believers, who then seek out discipleship. Isn't that precisely what we see in the New Testament - letters to new churches from older believers?

I'd never heard of Explo 72 before researching this comment. But it seems that Campus Crusade for Christ and Billy Graham were involved. Heck, apparently it also influenced Pope John Paul II, before he was Pope...

As I understand it, Boundless and FOTF are OK with worship music that includes elements of rock and roll: guitar, keyboard, drums. It seems that emerged out of the Jesus Movement and this Explo 72 conference.

Perhaps God's plan will "emerge" over the next 40 years for this new movement, too...

[37. Eliza said the following at 3:20 PM on May 22:]

37

ScottW,

I agree with Tom's assessment of the AP interview too--it was very disappointing! And I agree that McLaren is purposely elusive a lot of the time. He would rather not dwell on the rightness or wrongness of something, his point being that how we interact with each other and God is just as important as whether we're "right" (like saying telling a gay person they're sinful rather than inviting them to church and being their friend). And because it's important to really ponder the questions people are asking for ourselves instead of simply declaring them to be wrong (especially questions about hell and salvation). Because at the end of the day we all just have faith, and none of us has the exact same faith, or a complete knowledge of God.

McLaren's quote about people being followers of Jesus rather than members of the Christian religion is, I think, quite biblical. In Acts when people became followers of Jesus they did not cease to be Jews or Gentiles--they kept some (not all!!) of their customs and followed Jesus within their culture.

Hindus find "salvation" a number of different ways; a devotional practice like yoga is one example. In my mind, to be a Hindu follower of Jesus means that Jesus is the center of your devotional practice. Aradhna is a band that makes Hindu devotional songs to Jesus.

It's not uncommon for Messianic Jews to consider themselves truly Jewish, because they are followers of the Jewish Messiah.

Islam I don't know so much about. But I do know people in Turkey who teach about Jesus out of the Koran, and who encourage their friends to become a believer in Jesus. Not a "Christian". I think that word has so many negative connotations for them, that mentioning it does more harm than good.

I think it comes down to this: who are we really following? Calvin? Wesley? C.S. Lewis? John MacArthur? In the west we have so much tradition and so many connotations wrapped up in our belief in Jesus which are tangential to the gospel. Why would I convert them to Christianity when they could be converted to Christ? If the Holy Spirit indwells us both and we are both on a path to God (Father/Son/Holy Spirit), that's all that really matters.

Does that sound unorthodox to you :) ?

[38. Jim H. said the following at 5:44 PM on May 22:]

38

Eliza #37,
It is possible to be a Christian and retain aspects of your culture and ethnicity, but you cannot maintain a belief system that contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture. To be unconcerned with blatant contradictions is symptomatic of postmodernist thinking.

The final authority is not MaCarthur, not Calvin nor anyone else, but Holy Scripture (and these men would heartily agree with that statement). So a particular belief system must be tested against what Scripture says.

Let's first look briefly at Hinduism. It is polytheistic. To quote from a Christian Research Institute (www.equip.org) paper on Hinduism: “Beyond the principal deities of the Trimurti, it is estimated that there are 330 million other gods in Hinduism” (Dean Halverson, “Compact Guide to World Religions”, 87-89, Bethany House 1996)

In contrast, here is what the Bible has to say about other “gods.” Isaiah 45:42 (ESV)
“Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.”

Let’s now look at Buddhism. Again, I will quote from CRI resources:

"Buddha taught that spiritual deliverance was found by letting go of desire and the quest to satisfy the nonexistent soul, and by detaching oneself from impermanent things. This teaching is the Third Noble Truth. The Fourth Noble Truth is that salvation is achieved through effort, which Buddha called “the eightfold path.”

In other words, salvation is by human works in Buddhism. In contrast, the Bible teaches that salvation is by God’s grace which is obtained by putting our faith in Christ and in Christ alone.

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.

John 14:6 (ESV)
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Let’s finally look briefly at Islam. Here is what the Quran says about Jesus.

4:157
And for their saying: We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah, and they killed him not, nor did they cause his death on the cross, but he was made to appear to them as such. And certainly those who differ therein are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge about it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for certain:

Here is what the Bible says: (just one of many, many verses attesting to Christ’s death on the cross)

Romans 5:6-8
For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

To summarize - this notion that Christianity can be syncretized with other religions with clearly contradictory belief systems is unbiblical, utter nonsense and clearly unorthodox. There is only one path to God and it is through Christ alone as Jesus Himself said in John 14:6.

[39. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:50 PM on May 22:]

39

JimH asks:

What do you mean about orthodox dogmatics being almost as bad as unorthodox dogmatics? Are we not to be dogmatic about the essential truths of the Christian faith such as Christ being the only means of salvation, his substitutionary Atonement on the Cross, our justification before God by the imputation of His righteousness to us?

I amd VERY dogmatic about these essentials.

As am I. In fact, I am referring to otherwise orthodox believers--who otherwise affirm the fundamentals--who are dogmatic with respect to tangential matters, such as the five points of Calvinism, KJV-only, Landmarkism, Closed Communion, Dispensationalism, pretribulational rapture...

Did that clear it up?

[40. Matt said the following at 11:05 PM on May 22:]

40

Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck just released a great book on the growing Emergent Christian movement and what a load it truly is. Why We're Not Emergent. It is a must read.

[41. Jim H said the following at 9:20 AM on May 23:]

41

Amir #40,
Yes, that cleared it up. I don't think the beliefs you listed are essentials of the Christian faith and should not be points of division among believers, even though I know they frequently are points of division.

Of course that begs the question on what the "essentials" are. In my view the essentials have to do with the following:

1. Identity of Christ - one of the three Persons of the Holy Trinity.
2. What He did - came to earth in human form, lived a sinless life and died on the Cross as an atonement for our sin and rose from the dead to be our intercessor before God
3. Salvation - we are justified before God when we put our faith in Jesus and His righteousness is then imputed to us.
4. Jesus is the ONLY means of salvation
5. Holy Scripture is the inspired, inerrant Word of God (the original texts, that is) and is the final authority on matters of theology and how we should live our lives. This essential is usally listed first in the various Confessions of Faith (i.e. Westminster), because the above points hang on this axiom.

Whole books have been written on essential truths of the Christian faith and I realize that there are other points that may be considered essential, but these are the ones I think of first. KJV-only and other such contoversies are huge distractions. It is OK to disagree on some of these beliefs, but such trivialities should not divide God's people. As an example, I am Calvinist, but I have some Christian brothers I care a lot about who are Baptists and I sometimes attend Baptist church services. I don't think believing in the 5 points of Calvinism is necessary to be saved and it does not bother me that my Christian brothers diagree with me on this issue.

[42. Eliza said the following at 10:01 AM on May 23:]

42

Jim H. #38,

Of course. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life and Scripture is the authoritative word of God. I never denied that (and neither does McLaren). Like you said, cultural things can be kept, just like cultural elements of western Christianity can be discarded. Sometimes the label "Christian" does more harm than good--that was my only point.

But a couple other thoughts are: do these other religious cultures offer insight into God that our culture doesn't? what elements of Christianity (an authentically eastern religion) have been syncretized with western culture and actually water down the gospel of Jesus?

I've heard several definitions of "emerging" or "emergent". The main point is that definitions are avoided, because our faith is fluid; God is consistently revealing truth to us and we are growing in faith. Also, because the whole point is to get as far away from institutionalism as possible (which is why Gary Thomas's paragraph 3 from yesterday's article is so ironic). However, if you really need one ;) here is a decent chart. Probably everyone would protest their location! But it seems generally accurate.

A person can be emerging/ent and Evangelical at the same time. I am, and McLaren says he is. A person is emerging if they view their faith in a more postmodern way--with more questions than answers. A person is always a seeker, just is in various stages of seeking.

Some emphases that freak Evangelicals out, but which I think are quite biblical:
- Jesus is the Word of God, not our NIV or NASB. The Bible is authoritative, but there is more emphasis on the spirit of the law than the letter.

- Regarding hell and exclusivism/ inclusivism: if Jesus didn't specifically say it to us, it's not really any of our business. There are a lot of things we don't know and that seem unfair to us, but we need to trust that God will treat everyone fairly and justly and mercifully, like he's treated us.

-Regarding righteousness, the emphasis is more on our good acts towards our neighbors and less on personal holiness. The idea is that we are made holy (in our hearts and minds) by working out our faith in the world.

**Disclaimer: just because I left out something like sexual purity or the importance of traditional theological thought does not mean it's not important!! It just means that this is just a blog comment and can only go so far :).

[43. Eliza said the following at 10:04 AM on May 23:]

43

Jim H. #38,

Of course. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life and Scripture is the authoritative word of God. I never denied that (and neither does McLaren). Like you said, cultural things can be kept, just like cultural elements of western Christianity can be discarded. Sometimes the label "Christian" does more harm than good--that was my only point.

But a couple other thoughts are: do these other religious cultures offer insight into God that our culture doesn't? what elements of Christianity (an authentically eastern religion) have been syncretized with western culture and actually water down the gospel of Jesus?

I've heard several definitions of "emerging" or "emergent". The main point is that definitions are avoided, because our faith is fluid; God is consistently revealing truth to us and we are growing in faith. Also, because the whole point is to get as far away from institutionalism as possible (which is why Gary Thomas's paragraph 3 from yesterday's article is so ironic). However, if you really need one ;) here is a decent chart. Probably everyone would protest their location! But it seems generally accurate.

A person can be emerging/ent and Evangelical at the same time. I am, and McLaren says he is. A person is emerging if they view their faith in a more postmodern way--with more questions than answers. A person is always a seeker, just is in various stages of seeking.

Some emphases that freak Evangelicals out, but which I think are quite biblical:
- Jesus is the Word of God, not our NIV or NASB. The Bible is authoritative, but there is more emphasis on the spirit of the law than the letter. (John 1:1-5)

- Regarding hell and exclusivism/ inclusivism: if Jesus didn't specifically say it to us, it's not really any of our business. There are a lot of things we don't know and that seem unfair to us, but we need to trust that God will treat everyone fairly and justly and mercifully, like he's treated us. (John 21:20-23)

-Regarding righteousness, the emphasis is more on our good acts towards our neighbors and less on personal holiness. The idea is that we are made holy (in our hearts and minds) by working out our faith in the world. (James 1:27; Philippians 2:12-16)

**Disclaimer: just because I left out something like sexual purity or the importance of traditional theological thought does not mean it's not important!! It just means that this is just a blog comment and can only go so far :).

[44. Jim H said the following at 12:08 PM on May 23:]

44

Eliza, #42,
I guess it is not clear to me the point of the emergent movement.

1. There is nothing new with the idea of following the spirit of the law as well as the letter of the law. That is a classic belief that Jesus pounded home on the Sermon on the Mount. For example, take Matthew 5:21-5:22 (NIV)

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder,a and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment."

Of course, there are many other examples where Jesus underscores that it is not enough to obey the letter of the Law, but the heart most also be pure. THIS IS NOTHING NEW.

2. The idea of our actions towards others being a measuring stick of our degree of faith is nothing new. James strongly emphasizes this when he says (paraphrasing) "if there are no deeds, there there must be no faith, faith without works is dead." Living out our faith by showing love to others is sanctifying and makes us more holy. THIS IS NOTHING NEW.

But besides the fact the some of the points you are making about the beliefs of the emergent chruch are nothing new, there are several statements you make that are potentially disturbing.

"God is consistently revealing truth to us"

It is one thing to learn something new from the Bible or for the Holy Spirit to reveal an insight on a passage that you had not seen before (such as Martin Luther's Erureka moment with Romans 1:17), but are you saying that God is providing you with new Revelation, not contained in Scripture? Do you believe that God is providing you with new extra-Bibilcal Revelation? If that is the case, this belief is clearly unorthodox. The canon of Scripture is closed.

The other disturbing statement was that the emergent movement applies the ideas of postmodernism to their faith. Postmodernism basically says there are no absolute truths and logical contradictions are embraced. In short, Postmodernism embraces nonsense.

The other thing I have noticed is the tendancy to speak in generalities, such as your question about how Western culture may have distorted original Christianity which started in Israel with Jesus and the disciples. Can you give me some concrete examples of Western distortions of Christianity?

It seems to me that the Emergent movement is the product of someone who wants to make a name for himself by discovering something "new", or putting a new spin on things. The vast majority of people who think they have discovered something new think this because they are not very well read.

Now with all that said, I will say that the litmus test of a Christian is if they have placed their faith in Christ and whether or not they believe Christ is the Son of God who died for our sins and was resurrected. So I would never doubt anyone's salvation just because they are in the emergent movement as long as they adhere to these fundamentals. But it does seems that the emergent movement is flirting with dangerous postmodern ideology. In fact, I would go as far to say that the goal of interpreting Scripture through the lens of Postmodernism is to make the principles contained in scripture malleable instead of concrete, so it can be interpreted in line with someone's agenda.

[45. Jo said the following at 1:43 PM on May 23:]

45

Eliza;
Thanks for the link to the chart and article, that clarifies things a bit more. I like the idea of being comfortable with questions and not needing clear, immediate answers to everything - that's something I think many Christians lack. If I was to place myself on that chart (without knowing really who any of the people mentioned are), I guess I might be somewhere in that overlap between Evangelical and Emerging. Have you read 'The Ironic Christian's Companion' by Patrick Henry? I liked it a lot, there was much I disagreed with (he sounds emerging bordering on emergent from that chart), but a lot of truth as well, and a lot of warmth. :)

[46. brx said the following at 2:25 PM on May 23:]

46

Eliza (#42),

For someone who says she'd like to be more rational and cool-headed about it, that's a beautiful, rational, grace-filled reply! ...are you married yet? ;)

I like the mini comparison table in the blog post referenced. Below is a link to an article that I share to help explain part of the emergent/emerging church idea to slightly less academic types who ask. Though it's from one of those freebie, frequently liberal, community papers that typically give a negative outlook on Christianity, I was quite impressed by the seemingly fair view.

http://www.metrosantacruz.com/metro-santa-cruz/05.31.06/vintage-faith-church-0622.html

And in further fairness, a few months later, the neighboring county's freebie paper published an article about a big-box church that has been having a positive impact in Monterey.

Grace & peace.

[47. Eliza said the following at 2:40 PM on May 23:]

47

Jo,

No, I haven't heard of that book, but I will definitely look it up! Thanks for the reference :).

Jim H. #43

1) I agree that there is absolutely nothing new that emerging/ent people have come up with. I think "they" would be the first to admit it, too. A lot of "emergent" congregations adopt really old liturgy because they grew up in more modern, contemporary Evangelical services and they enjoy the meaning behind the old rituals. There is a lot of emphasis on Christian thought and tradition of old--not just Protestant, but Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox as well. Nobody claims to be original :).

And I agree that theoretically Evangelicals follow the spirit rather than the letter of the law, but practically it doesn't often come across that way. I'm talking about arguments about which translation method is most accurate and whether a gender-neutral Bible is okay and whether a specific verse is literal or figurative. And the passion with which people insist that their view is right--often that focus on *rightness* overshadows what *goodness* could be done.

2) I certainly hope God is consistently revealing new, extra-biblical revelation to me! If not, my faith is stagnant or shrinking. Of course I don't mean news like, "Jesus is coming back in 2 weeks" or "here is a prophecy about America" (although many Evangelical traditions do believe in prophecy). I mean learning. Nothing new. Nothing other than the Holy Spirit opening our eyes in new ways to the character of God and how we, as humans, can experience him. Everyone has little epiphanies about things they understood before, but on a smaller level.

Again, nothing new. Yes this is what every Evangelical church teaches on a regular basis. So what makes emerging/ent stuff different?

Probably semantics, culture, emphasis--just coating stuff that helps some people understand God better. It's not that people are applying postmodernism to their faith--it's that they are postmodern, and the faith that Evangelicals preach (or the way they preach it) just doesn't make any sense to them. In the same way postmodernism doesn't make sense to you.

Also, your average postmodernist is not a nonsensical there-is-no-absolute-truth type. I certainly don't know anyone who thinks that. Of course there is Absolute Truth, but how are you to know that you know what it is? You cannot know anything. You just have to believe that you know. And there is always a chance that you are wrong and someone else is right. Or, perhaps you are "right", based on your relative knowledge, understanding, and bias. So, your truth is relative. It depends on factors. Factors which you might not even know about :).

So, that is why consistent learning, questioning, searching is so important. It is the only way to keep finding more Truth.

About western distortions of Christianity--I was just asking the question. Perhaps you don't think there are any. Personally, I think our tendency to examine scripture like a textbook and/or devotional volume rather than a set of spiritual documents is kind of syncretistic and western. And also the integration of Christianity and politics associated with mainly one party. Perhaps also our disproportionate focus on sexuality over other things (like community and kindness).

And perhaps not :). It's something I need to think more about.

Sorry this post was so long. Main points: 1) right, nothing is new, 2) searching for Truth is a life-long endeavor.

[48. Tami said the following at 3:11 PM on May 23:]

48

Interesting article, brx! Thanks for sharing it. BTW I knew Chip Ingram was from Santa Cruz Bible, but I didn't know Vintage Faith had a connection to that church. You learn something new every day!

[49. Jim H said the following at 3:37 PM on May 23:]

49

Eliza,
Thank you for the additional explanation. You sound like a very reasonable person with a lot of good common sense and I admire your humility and willingness to share your experience with the emergent movement. I have truly enjoyed this dialogue with you.

I guess my fundamental concern is with this simple statement that you made: "You cannot know anything."

This statement is false. I'll admit there are some things we do not know and maybe cannot know for certain (i.e. eschatology - the exact sequence and unfolding of end time events), but there are some things that are certain and knowable like 2+2=4. The means of salvation is also certain and knowable:

Romans 10:9 (NIV)
That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Understanding of the Hindu religion or Islam will never change that fundamental truth - that faith in Jesus is the only way to salvation.

Let me ask you this: why would the God of the universe who loves us and wants a relationship with us create a world in which "You cannot know anything." That would be a world of nonsense and if we "can't know anything," how could we come to know God if nothing (including God) is knowable? How could we understand how God wants us to live if we "cannot know anything?"

And the statement "that we can't know anything" is in itself circular and self defeating. If we "can't know anything" how can you say that statement is true?

I will say again - Postmodernism is an effort to pass off nonsense as a "sophisticated", new way of thinking.

[50. Eliza said the following at 3:37 PM on May 23:]

50

Aww, brx, you just totally made my day!! :) Unfortunately you are about 8 months too late. But fortunate for my husband. And also for me ;).

I looked up that link--great article! I think they hit the nail on the head with a couple points, especially about people joining who have had a crisis of faith, and about people who are looking for authenticity and the shift from propositions to narratives. Good stuff!

-->For anyone who tries to go to that
link (@ brx #45), it will just take to you to the paper's main page; just search for "Vintage Faith" and you'll find the article.

[51. brx said the following at 4:00 PM on May 23:]

51

Jim H. (#43) wrote:

"I guess it is not clear to me the point of the emergent movement."

Jim, that is absolutely A-OK. Modernism, Postmodernism, Emergent/Emerging, and other such labels are not rigidly defined either -- because they represent people. And, people are not mere mathematical, physical, constants. (though, some statisticians might argue otherwise) People are more fluid, morphing and growing in one direction or another.

How did you become a follower of Christ? Do you expect all people to become believers in the same way?

Your experiences as a follower of Christ and how you got to the point you're at in your walk are not all the same as others and thus your perspective is likely a little different. God did that on purpose. In His unique creativity, God does not bring each believer to worship Jesus by first having them agree to a five-part list of essentials. Instead, God seems to build relationships and the essentials often come bit-by-bit as their relationship with God develops.

One way to try and understand the emerging church: make friends with some non-Christians and share your life with them -- not for the purpose of converting them in 3~6months, but just for the purpose of loving them as a genuine friend. Trust God to lead them to ask the questions rather than using some '10-steps to making a disciple' program or Bible study outline.

Grace, peace, and adventure.

[52. BRX said the following at 4:29 PM on May 23:]

52

BRX,
I again fail to see the point of the emergent movement. I have done the things you mentioned because of my convictions from reading the Scripture and growing love for Christ, not because of some supposedly new ideas from the emergent movement.

When I worked for Texas Instruments, I made a point of making friends with my Muslim co-workers in hopes that I would one day have the opportunity to share the Gospel with them. Well that opportunity came to fruition when they invited me to dinner because they were curious about Christianity (they knew I was a Christian and wanted to know what I believed). That evening I explained the Gospel to them as best I could. I left TI a few years ago, so I am not sure if any of them has come to Christ, but the point is that this opportunity to share the Gospel came because of friendships I developed with them. And you know what - I did not need the emergent movement with its Postmodern nonsense telling me how to do this. It came naturally because of my growing love for Christ and my desire to share the good news of my Savior with them.

[53. Jim H said the following at 3:58 PM on May 25:]

53

Post 51 was actually posted by me, not BRX. As as was thinking and typing, my mind must have drifted into E-Mail mode and I typed in BRX in the "Name" field as if I were addressing him in an E-Mail. My apologies for the confusion.

[54. Eliza said the following at 9:07 AM on May 28:]

54

Hi Jim H.,

Let me ask you this: why would the God of the universe who loves us and wants a relationship with us create a world in which "You cannot know anything." That would be a world of nonsense and if we "can't know anything," how could we come to know God if nothing (including God) is knowable? How could we understand how God wants us to live if we "cannot know anything?"

Let me as you this in return: how do you know there is a God who loves you and wants a relationship with you? How do you know that you are not wrong about the things you think are right? How do you know that the wages of sin is death or that Paul of Tarsus even wrote those words or that we're not misunderstanding his meaning? How do you know the Bible is "inspired"? How do you know you know what "inspired" means?

Probably because there is good evidence, which would make your knowledge probable, although not absolute. Or, as people often say, because you "just know", which is really another way of saying "I choose to believe".

I shouldn't have used the word "anything", because you're right--that is nonsensical and ridiculous. There are things I do know, to different degrees:
-I know am female
-I know English
-I know how to drive
-I know that 2x7=14
-I know Boston, MA
-I know my husband loves me
-I know the Bible is accurate
-I know about God
-I know God

I think you would agree that knowing 2+2=4 is very different from knowing God, or knowing how to obtain salvation.

(This is a paraphrase from a chapter in Brian McLaren's book, Finding Faith: The Search for What Makes Sense)

I strongly believe (might even say "know"!) that a person cannot fully come to know the fullness of God on this earth--we can only know whichever part He chooses to reveal. And we can only know that part through our cultures, prejudices and sinful natures, which further limits our knowledge.

After all, if we could know God, that would make him rather small and pitiful. Small enough for my mind to wrap around is way too small. In my opinion.

The reason I said "we cannot know anything" was because I was including the gaps in our knowledge of science and history as well. It's a common saying that the "winners write the history books", which leaves out a lot of history's loser's facts and events. Even science is the art of loosely holding on to what you know for now, until a new hypothesis comes along to enlighten or broaden or even destroy your previous knowledge.

Finally, I think it's perfectly fine for you to find postmodernist, emergent thinking unhelpful, un-useful, and weird. You certainly don't need it to share the gospel or win anyone to Christ. If it doesn't work for you--great! Stick with what makes most sense to you.

The point of the emergent movement is to make Christianity clearer to people like me. For me it is anything but postmodern nonsense passing itself off as sophistication. I'm not looking for sophisticated thinking--I'm looking for faith that makes sense. And this makes sense to me.

Another person above said that emergent/postmodernist people come off as arrogant, cynical and judgmental. I'd generally have to agree with that. I've spend the past 3 years or so being all of those things! And during my time of doubt and perplexity, I really appreciated the Christians who did not respond in kind, with judgment and arrogance. Those were the ones whose faith I respected the most; they were proving their own points. It just so happens that many of them had gone through the same doubt/ perplexity/ arrogance and judgment that I had, and had come out more gracious for it. Generally the Evangelical ("I am right, you are wrong, and I know it") crowd weren't so interested in a faith journey--they were more interested in spiritual results.

So, perhaps you find the emergent church wishy-washy and annoying. That is a personal preference. To myself and many others it wrestles with Christian faith in the world we live in and understand.

[55. Eliza said the following at 9:24 AM on May 28:]

55

I just noticed that today's Boundless article once again critiques the Emergent movement from the perspective of someone who is not a fan. I would LOVE (and I think a lot of thinkers who come to Boundless would too) to see/hear an interview with someone who is either a leader in the Emerging/ent Church or at least an advocate. I feel like a lot of mischaracterizations are getting out there.

I'm sure Brian McLaren would love to make himself available for a phone interview :).

[56. Tami said the following at 11:56 AM on May 28:]

56

Eliza -- I ask in seriousness, who would you suggest represent the emerging church/Emergent?

It seems like no sooner than a person tries to find someone willing to represent emerging/Emergent, than that person says "I'm not a representative, it's an organic movement." Or, someone who *is* a fan of emerging/Emergent says, "That person doesn't really represent what I think of as emerging... they're too [whatever]" or "you can't define emerging by a person."

Case in point: Mark Driscoll. Is he emerging "enough"? He certainly was a part of the movement at one point. Or how about Dan Kimball? In the article brx posted, he says, "I've been saying that I'm a fundamentalist without being seen as a fundamentalist." That would certainly rankle a lot of the emergents I know.

I've tried to like the emerging church movement; some of my best friends are emerging. ;) [In all seriousness, I was in a small group led by someone who identifies himself with the movement and has written articles and books under that "label" (so to speak), so it's not altogether unfamiliar to me in knowledge or experience.] But when push comes to shove, I can't handle the reluctance to define what it is that they actually stand for. For that reason I think it's hard to find one person to represent it. You'd probably need a panel of people. But knowing emergents, the conversation would probably be hours long. ;)

BTW -- there are "thinkers" outside the emerging church, too. :)

[57. Christina (in green) said the following at 1:21 PM on May 28:]

57

I think you would agree that knowing 2+2=4 is very different from knowing God, or knowing how to obtain salvation

Actually... in some ways, mathematics is VERY similar to knowing God.

As someone with a BA in Math, I feel somewhat qualified to make that statement...

My breakthrough in understanding numbers came when I saw numbers the same way I saw my faith. My 8th grade math book said this:

Numbers are symbols

They are a symbol of an actual reality. And with those symbols, we are somehow able to describe, rather accurately, many fields of science, and have a better understanding of the world.

All standing on a premise - that with a certain amount of logic and a large amount of faith, we accept as truth.

As it is with believing in God. Yes, we can have some logic to stand on, but the acceptance of the existence of a God and that Scripture is God-breathed and true is a premise largely accepted on Faith.

In fact, I could argue that every logical argument begins with a premise that is, in fact, largely accepted by faith...with some modicum of logic.

And yet, God gave us powers of reasoning that go beyond any other created creatures' gifts. And we largely use it to EDIFY a faith that we have already accepted as truth. With scripture and "God is real" at the foundation that every logical building block stands on, we are able to KNOW (with limitations) our world - and consequently, God.

I will readily admit, I know little about the emergent church. What I do know doesn't recommend itself, although that could be because I've been subjecting myself to very biased information.

What I do know, even from Eliza, is that feelings seem to be given more credence over logic. Not faith, but feelings.

I think there needs to be a reformation in the church, but I don't think the emergent church as the right idea. Logic and Faith need to be accepted as going hand in hand and complimentary and necessary for the whole.

[58. Eliza said the following at 2:09 PM on May 28:]

58

Tami,

Sorry if the "thinkers" thing came out wrong! I meant all people who like to think and have intellectual conversations. Like you and Jim H., above. I just think, even if you disagree with them, you might appreciate a different, more positive perspective. I know I would :).

Like I said above, I'd personally ask Brian McLaren to talk about the movement, mostly because he's been there from the beginning and he knows so many people. Rob Bell or Dan Kimball or Tony Jones would be fine too, though. It doesn't really matter what their personal opinions are about stuff, I think they all can give a general idea of what the point is.

I don't know much about Mark Driscoll except that I've heard he's kind of had a falling out with some emerging leaders. Maybe he wouldn't be such an advocate because of personal issues.

It wouldn't be so much about personal stances on issues (maybe Dan Kimball's comment would "rankle" some emergents--it doesn't bother me at all and in fact sounds very emergent to me!) Just someone who calls themselves emergent, knows people and likes their message, enjoys their perspective...that kind of thing.

For example, I'm American, but I certainly don't speak for all Americans. That doesn't mean I couldn't contribute helpfully in a foreign interview.

[59. Eliza said the following at 3:25 PM on May 28:]

59

Christina (in green):

As it is with believing in God. Yes, we can have some logic to stand on, but the acceptance of the existence of a God and that Scripture is God-breathed and true is a premise largely accepted on Faith.

In fact, I could argue that every logical argument begins with a premise that is, in fact, largely accepted by faith...with some modicum of logic.

Exactly my point! Better said than I :).

What I do know, even from Eliza, is that feelings seem to be given more credence over logic. Not faith, but feelings.

I'm definitely sorry you think that. And kind of confused as to where you get that idea? If I was just focusing on feelings, I'd be a hedonist. As it is, my brain (and faith) is taking me towards Christianity. Something every feeling has, in the past, urged me to disown. Even sometimes now. Personally, when I read my comments above I see much more logic than emotion. The emotion comes in when something I hold dear is attacked or maligned, as it would with anyone.

I hope you read some of the writings of these emerging/ent authors and see what you think for yourself.

[60. Tami said the following at 3:58 PM on May 28:]

60

Eliza -- thanks for your comments.

I think I see what you're getting at: you would like to see an article that describes the movement not in terms of what it is *not*, but in terms of what it *is*... written from the perspective of someone who considers himself or herself a proponent, and written with the intention of stating (in general terms) the thinking behind it. Am I right?

[61. John said the following at 9:07 AM on May 29:]

61

The zeal with which individuals "know" something is hilarious to me.

Everybody "knows" truth, but few know the Truth.

Yet it's always the "religious" or "christians" who are closed minded.

LOL.

Have a nice day "knowing" you're right and questioning reality.

[62. Eliza said the following at 11:47 AM on May 29:]

62

Tami #60,

Yep, that's pretty much it :).

Christina (in green) #57,

After submitting my comment I realized that I had something else to say about feelings. It's true that it's not a good idea to base every decision or perspective on how you are feeling at a certain moment, but it is also true that we, as humans created in the image of God, were given feelings for a reason. In some cases they give us more information and are more trustworthy than our logic may be. In any case, I think it is very important for someone to feel generally good about their faith. If they have a consistently bad feeling about it, then there's something rotten somewhere that needs to be sniffed out.

[63. Jim H said the following at 5:34 PM on May 30:]

63

Eliza,
Thank you for the additional explanation of your viewpoint. I think I am beginning to understand it a lot better. This thread went idle for a few days and I thought it was dead or I would have responded sooner.

The fundamental premise that I accept (somewhat on faith, but also with some logic and history thrown in) is that the original texts of the Bible are the inerrant and inspired Word of God. Once you accept that premise, the world becomes black and white rather than shades of gray because the Bible is crystal clear on matters of supreme importance such as how to live your life and how you can become saved. It is true that we cannot know God in His complete fullness on earth, but God has graciously provided us with His Word so that we can know many aspects of His character (holiness, love, mercy, hatred of sin, etc.) and most importantly, how to become saved.

If you don't accept the premise that the Word of God is inspired and inerrant (in the original manuscripts), I could definitely see how things could become more "fuzzy." I think that is our fundamental point of difference.

[64. Abbie said the following at 10:22 PM on Oct 21:]

64

Great post! Thank you.

[1. Christina (in green) said the following at 12:59 PM on May 21:]

1

Tom,

I agree with you completely.

I was discussing this Emerging church with my parents this weekend - I agree, there's a need for a reaction to the current state of the church...a reformation if you will...I'm definitly not appreciative of the tact that the emerging church is taking.

Their views of sound theology are a bit disconcerting.

[2. Matt said the following at 12:59 PM on May 21:]

2

"all that God is ultimately interested in is extracting souls for heaven"

McLaren didn't say that Evangelical Relief Organizations are only serving to bring souls to Christ.

He said, that there is an assumption within the Christian community that the only thing God is interested in is the # of people going to heaven.

You can disagree with that assertion, but that is what he actually said.

Also, McLaren is on the far left theologically of the Emerging Church movement. People should really stop using him as the posterboy for the movement. I think people usually do it because some of his beliefs are so far out there that people can then dismiss the Emerging Church as a whole.

[3. Michelle said the following at 1:01 PM on May 21:]

3

Thank you! When I was in college (just finished) a lot of my friends were super into this whole emergent thing. It drove me crazy. I could never even get myself into studying it for the sheer arrogance towards church members that I saw in them. To look down on them so strongly. The one good thing it did was blow up traits in myself to their logical conclusion... I was looking down on church people too. And I was so disgusted by them that I couldn't help but notice it in myself.

Other than that... emerging church stuff is really annoying.

[4. brx said the following at 2:00 PM on May 21:]

4

So, Tom... Have you talked about these things with BrianM personally or are you just trying to tear down a brother publicly? I'll bet you could have a drink with him off-the-record.

I suspect BrianM is evasive in answering with specifics because he's not aiming to make disciples of Brian McLaren; he's hoping people will hear some of what he says, look to the Gospels for the specifics, and end up following Christ. I think one of the things BrianM and other 'emergents' are so frustrated with is that many people follow a church rather than Christ.

Funny, I recently looked up Boundless articles on Bono/U2 because I was curious about Boundless' opinion. I found articles that pounded and articles that praised. Interesting. :)

Grace, peace, discovery & adventure to ya!

[5. Jordan Peacock said the following at 2:17 PM on May 21:]

5

while there is somewhat of an enclave expressed best by the typical talkers at Emergent Village, generally speaking 'emergent' is less a doctrinal statement and more of an attitude regarding how one pursues faith. Therefore you have Anglicans, Anabaptists, Pentecostals and other denominations taking some of the thought processes into their own spiritual communities for reinvigoration.

I read/write at Jesus Manifesto and many there are skeptical of some/all of what certain figureheads propose. But we do that for people across the board; mostly for emergent like because that's who we're closest to in many respects.

But in all honesty, I've never met two people within the same church who had identical theology and praxis. The differences between people claiming the term 'emergent' is largely because they acknowledge and wrestle with these differences, questions and concerns from within a sphere of continued faith.

Peace

[6. Eliza said the following at 2:20 PM on May 21:]

6

This is one topic I cannot stay silent on! (Although I suppose that's a ridiculous statement, since I cannot stay silent on a great many topics :P ).

Tom, my first impression is that your irritation towards McLaren and his ilk has caused you to 1) produce the same "standard broad-brush, straw-man criticism" that you accuse McLaren as presenting and 2) mock as contemptuously as you perceive him/them doing.

Perhaps you disagree, that's fine. I can only share my own perspective.

I, too, found that interview incomplete and frustrating and frankly entirely inconsistent with the McLaren that I know. Having read a great many of his books (the New Kind of Christian trilogy, Finding Faith, A Generous Orthodoxy and others), I think McLaren would be just as offended at the way those statements were presented as you are. I really encourage you to read what he has written himself rather than someone else's mutilation of his ideas.

McLaren has repeatedly called himself an Evangelical, and his own theological views are actually a lot more conservative than you might expect. He does not hold malice towards Evangelicals; the news just likes to stir up controversy. I think the so-called "attacks" that you see are actually personal experiences he has had, having been a pastor in an Evangelical church for a long time, and so the negative things he expresses are from his own experience.

Personally, if it were not for the words and perspective of Brian McLaren I would absolutely not be a Christian today. I happen to like the lack of definition in the "emergent/emerging" movement, but that's a personal preference, nothing more. McLaren & friends have SO much truth and insight to share, and I wish that Evangelicals would be more open to hearing it instead of feeling defensive. It makes me very sad to read columns like this, because every time it feels like a slap of rejection from my own Christian community.

If you personally think "emergent" people phrase things wishy-washy and deflect, that's fine. You have a right to your opinion. But why attack his character (and implicitly his salvation/godliness) as well as, by association, those who find hope in Jesus from their message?

[7. Eliza said the following at 2:25 PM on May 21:]

7

One more thing:

The article said that McLaren does not believe in absolute truth. That is FLAGRANTLY false! I point you to chapter 1 of his book, Finding Faith: A Search For What Makes Sense entitled, "Does it really matter what I believe?"

Answer, yes. You can sincerely believe that thin ice is going to hold you up, but that belief is still going to give you a cold bath. Right belief matters.

Please don't believe the lies and rumors people spread about the emerging church just to cause discord!!

[8. BDB said the following at 2:37 PM on May 21:]

8

The OP quoted:

>>[L]ook at the Catholic Church: For all of its orthodoxy, it could have bishops covering up for molesting priests.<<

You know, we could have an interesting discussion on the role of church discipline. One of my practicing Catholic friends noted that all of the allegations are 20 years old or older...his conclusion is that the bishops took action and put a stop to it, but did so quietly.

Someone I know in education confided to me how he handled a similar accusation a student brought to him decades ago. He went in and observed the teacher. He didn't see the behavior that was reported...but he saw incompetance. That was 4pm on Friday. By 8am Monday the public school teacher was gone, desk cleaned out, etc. It reminded me that in previous generations, they DID deal with things decisively, but it wasn't on cable news.

There's been plenty of Christian leaders that have fallen in one way or another. I remember when a pastor of one of our local churches was arrested. The next weekend, his wife and children came to our church; he was still in jail. What is our responsibility to those who are negatively impacted by the sin of another? Is putting it on TV the only Biblical response?

[9. Eliza said the following at 2:51 PM on May 21:]

9

BDB,

I live in Boston. These priests who were accused of molesting children (not adults, who even have a difficult and sometimes impossible time reporting sexual crimes) were still at those same parishes in those same roles 20 years later. Not in jail, not ousted, not anything. Cardinal Law, who oversaw the non-discipline, was promoted to a position in Rome.

That appears (note: I only know what any member of the general public knows) to be the definition of hypocrisy.

[10. Sylvia said the following at 2:53 PM on May 21:]

10

Brian McLaren teaches publicly and Mr. Neven is criticizing his public teachings.
This is not a case of a brother caught in secret sin needing the rebuke of one or two of his brothers.(Matthew 18)
This is a case of a man's false teachings being broadcast over various media, and those teachings needing to be shot down with reason and with scripture by people who love the sheep. (Galatians 2:14, Timothy 2:16-18 2 John 9-11)

Another issue: A brother in Christ is anyone who shares in faith that Christ paid for our sins on the cross. McLaren, when he does take a position, suggests that the cross is "cosmic child abuse" and wishes to downplay the atonement in favor of the discipline of living more like Jesus lived. I have good reason to believe this poor man is lost. I don't see much actual basis for calling him a brother.

[11. Eliza said the following at 2:59 PM on May 21:]

11

Sylvia,

PLEASE reference your quote that McLaren thinks the cross is "cosmic child abuse". I find that impossible to believe (unless he said he sees how some people could feel that way).

I feel like Ted Slater talking about global warming--needing to proclaim truth!! Who knew ;).

[12. Tim said the following at 3:30 PM on May 21:]

12

"Try reading his books some time. You can go thousands of words and dozens of pages and still not know exactly what he thinks about something."

I felt the same way when I read Rob Bell's "Velvet Elvis." I suppose it is no coincidence that Bell and McLaren are good friends. They write like each other!

I much rather read someone like Mark Driscoll who appears to be more doctrinally sound. Plus, he is a friend of McLaren's and the two of them go way back. Just last year at a Southern Baptist convention in September Driscoll warned everybody about McLaren, Bell, and Doug Padgett.

All these guys skirt and avoid answering the questions they raise. I know that McLaren thinks homosexuality is ok. That is a big red flag to me.

Now, I do agree that the emergent movement is raising some important issues. I just wish the majority of them taught sound doctrine.

[13. BDB said the following at 4:20 PM on May 21:]

13

Regarding Eliza (#9), I don't have access to enough specifics to be able to comment on what any one individual did right or wrong. I vaguely remember that someone from Boston was transferred to the parish right down the street from me, but in a capacity where they were no longer in contact with children. But I don't have the details.

In general, all organizations face governance issues. I read a report that no atrocities were committed under Rommel's command. He was a German General - but not a member of the Nazi party. The atrocities are commonly reported under the SS - which was not the professional military but were all Nazi true believers. This suggests pretty strongly that leadership matters.

Scouting faced the same problem. I'm saddened that all new scouts and parents now must review a booklet on molestation and sign a form that they understand what is not permitted. Aside from liability, they had to be pretty explicit in taking a stand. Some priests and parishs have done the same thing - making sure that everyone understands that there is a no-tolerance policy. Our church does things like ensure two teachers per Sunday School classroom, put windows in all the doors, implemented a "hallway supervisor" program during Sunday School, and separates certain bathrooms for kids that adults are not allowed in. Part of it is insurance-driven, but it's also to send a clear message. But these are management decisions, not theology.

[14. BDB said the following at 4:28 PM on May 21:]

14

Oh yeah - one more thing. In many states, disciplinary actions of employees cannot be legally disclosed. So, from a management/legal standpoint, care must be taken when deciding what to tell the public about a specific person. This is why paid administrative leave is used - it protects the organization from liability from the employee while they conduct the investigation. The worst part is, what do you do when you find weirdness but no evidence of anything unlawful? If you tell the public you fired someone for weirdness, that person has a huge claim against the organization for unlawful discharge and/or interfering with their ability to earn a living. If they get a severance package, they're gone, their liability to the organization ends, and it usually costs a lot less than trying to prove in court they did something unlawful.

[15. Josh said the following at 4:47 PM on May 21:]

15

Eliza, RE #11-->

It's in reference to the penal substitutionary theory of Atonement. If it is McClaren who said that (I can't recall if it was) he was commenting on that particular theory of Atonement, not the doctrine of Atonement.

[16. Tom Neven said the following at 5:05 PM on May 21:]

16

Eliza (#11)

McLaren says it in The Story We Find Ourselves In: Further Adventures of a New Kind of Christian, p. 143.

This book is a McLaren apologetic told in novel form, and he puts the words "cosmic child abuse" in the mouth of Kerry, not the first-person "I" of the novel. But significantly, Kerry throughout the book represents the positions that McLaren takes in some of his other works, so it's fair to say that "Kerry" in this book is in fact McLaren.

Others might see it differently, though.

And, Eliza, I've read a lot of McLaren. I find him quite frustrating. I've plowed through most of the major works of Kierkegaard, Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason," Descartes' "Pensees" and other similar dense works, but they're less frustrating because you know the author is at least trying to state something he believes to be true. With McLaren you can have no such confidence.

[17. Chin Wee said the following at 8:07 PM on May 21:]

17

Please don't be confused by the emerGENT and the emerGING church. The emerging church, consisting of people such as Mark Driscoll, CJ Mahaney etc., are very biblically sound, and they hold on very tightly to doctrines.

The emergent church however, due to their fear of confrontation, and their over-eagerness to embrace everyone (they say doctrines/creeds are divisive), skirts around the issue of truth, and never confronts it.

[18. Sylvia said the following at 8:39 PM on May 21:]

18

Eliza #11 It was careless of me not to cite any reference on that. (Thanks Tom) I also didn't mention that it was technically written in a "voice" although, honestly I see this more and more and I think its another squishy emergent trick to put out an idea that chips away at the gospel while not having the stand behind it. This all under the very condescending guise of "making you think". At any rate, I should have mentioned that too, and I am sorry that I did not.

Here is a link to McLaren speaking on hell and the atonement. The part about the cross comes at the end:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOUfsX2fbk

[19. brx said the following at 9:05 PM on May 21:]

19

RE: Sylvia (#10) [Eliza (#11), Tom (#16)];

Sylvia, you're misquoting context about the "cosmic child abuse" thing. McLaren put those words in the mouth of a fictitious character to illustrate a comon response that many non-Christians have to the idea of Jesus' substitutionary atonement. [btw, several _real_ athiest/agnostic friends have given me a very similar response when I try to explain; I've given up that method of witnessing to them because it's not nearly as effective as action].

Tom, no, it's not fair to say that "Kerry" in the book is in fact McLaren. That would not be reading critically. Maybe _was_ at one time - depending on McLaren's history of following Christ, but not likely now.

I've been following the emergent/emerging church idea for a few years now. My best definition so far is that it's one's "emerging" from a burdensome yoke of someone else's dogma/doctrine (religious or worldly, or worldly-religious) to follow Christ alone, to discover doctrine and orthodoxy fresh from the Bible and what God personally reveals.

I see McLaren's not giving direct answers as being similar to the teaching methods of folks like Peter Abelard. Answers that are given by man have less impact than those that are discovered from God.

Grace, peace & adventure.

[20. Sarah22 said the following at 9:44 PM on May 21:]

20

I am in no way taking sides as I don't know anything at all about the topic although the quotes in the article by McLaren are certainly disheartening to hear coming from someone who is supposed to be a fellow brother in Christ.

Anyway, after reading through all your comments it did make me think of a verse from Galations 5...my Pastor preaches a great deal about this kind of thing and I've only recently realized how important of a warning it is...and I have a REALLY hard time loving people who seem to have a really different viewpoint than I do about God but I have to love them anyway...

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. (Galations 5:14-15)

[21. Sylvia said the following at 2:46 AM on May 22:]

21

If the voice of "Kerry" was a lone example of the use of a voice taken out of context, I would withdraw the argument. The thing is Brian McClaren makes a habit out of taking heretical teachings and "just putting them out there" so to speak, so as to not take responsibility for them.
Even in the audio that I linked to, I notice that--even though he seems to agree with it---he cites the comment on the atonement as something opined by another anonymous preacher. He is clearly enthusiastic about it, but it gives him an out.
McLaren also heartily endorses books by authors who take the aforementioned low view of the atonement: ie Alan Jones in his book "Reimagining Christianity" the flap of which features McLaren's endorsement, and Steve Chalke and Alan Mann in "The Lost Message of Jesus"
Sure, you can go back and ask B-Mac, and he can tell you that he wasn't referring to THOSE parts of those books. He can always slip out of it. You can chalk it all up to some sort of Socratic dialogue, or the old "making people think". But at best, you have someone who isn't saying anything, so why bother reading him? At best you have someone a little irresponsible with what ideas he throws around, and a little careless in the materials he endorses. At best you have a guy throwing out random bad ideas under the assumption that you require being made to think.
At worst, you have a coward and a heretic, someone who goes around spreading bad doctrine, who when confronted with his deviation from orthodoxy always has a slick way to slip our from under it claiming that it was a quote, the exception, thinking out loud, something he personally hasn't decided on, etc, etc,etc. You have a guy who wants to slide into the mix and be considered a mainstream evangelical so that he can then go ahead and then, maybe, tell you what he thinks about homosexuality. what value he places on the scripture, who he thinks Jesus was and why he thinks He died.
If Brian McLaren knows what he is doing, then he is deceitful and dangerous. If he does not, then he is academically irresponsible and dangerous.

[22. Dan Gill said the following at 7:29 AM on May 22:]

22

I'm not familiar with McLaren, although I find his comments from the interview to be, well, wrong. But I had to chuckle when I read this:

"And why be precise when you can resort to clichés and paint with a really broad brush?"

[23. Sarah P. said the following at 7:55 AM on May 22:]

23

brx (#4) said, "many people follow a church rather than Christ."

That this can be true, I don't deny, but it seems strange to put "church" and "Christ" in opposition. How do you "follow Christ" alone? To love Christ and to love your neighbor as yourself are practically inextricable. The church multiplies the power of any one Christian to worship God through serving, giving, and loving. We are all called to be in community because each one of us is a part of a whole.

When you strike out by yourself, it is easy to get lost. I received a poignant reminder of that last summer in the form of a 45-page, single-spaced letter from a former acquaintance - in which he explained that I was a fool and detailed his seven-step process of life growth, during which he had realized that he knew more than his parents, then his church, and then everyone else. This guy was brilliant, quoting sections of Chesterton and Lewis from memory, but he was also turning paranoid.

An extreme example, but I think you get my point. I am glad to rest under authority, with the ability to sit back and measure my pastor's words against Scripture from my position of not having to be the one to formulate them. Makes me realize the deep responsibility on my pastors' shoulders and their own need to reach into tradition for authority.

No church is perfect. Never has been; never will be. So the solution is not to splinter off (unless the church denies a fundamental doctrine), but to work where we stand and trust in the grace of Christ to fill the gaps.

[24. Eliza said the following at 8:25 AM on May 22:]

24

Brx--well said! It's hard for me to be rational when someone who has had a major spiritual impact on my life is being condemned. I wish I could be more cool-headed about it.

Tom, is this just about being annoyed by McLaren's style? Personally, I know exactly what McLaren is trying to say in his books. I suppose it's because I've lived a similar journey to his and wrestled with the exact same questions he has. To someone who has been smacked up with black-and-white Christian "answers" their whole life and whose questions have been either squelched or dismissed, his honesty and humility (which I guess you somehow find arrogant?) is not only refreshing, it's an answer to a lifetime of prayers.

God uses all kinds of people to accomplish his work. Some people may find McLaren's methods exasperating; I find them to be extremely satisfying.

I am honestly really really trying with every cell in my being to feel like a part of the "Boundless/FotF" part of the body of Christ, (and be gracious and loving and all that), but I continue to feel rejected and alienated on a regular basis. It's just really sad, especially because I think you have no idea who you're kicking with your words while they're down.

[25. Sam Hunley said the following at 8:56 AM on May 22:]

25

TOM:

"Try reading his books some time. You can go thousands of words and dozens of pages and still not know exactly what he thinks about something."

I felt the same way when I read Rob Bell's "Velvet Elvis." I suppose it is no coincidence that Bell and McLaren are good friends. They write like each other!

My response: I read Velvet Elvis, and I found that not to be the case. Bell backs up almost everything he says with footnotes referencing scripture and other books, and he uses those footnotes to support what he has expressed. Basically, I think he is pretty clear about what he is saying. However, sometimes he doesn't necessarily come to conclusions, but that was the intention of the book. He states in the introduction that he is not going to answer all of the question. Rather, he wished to encourage people to think about different aspects of the Christian faith in a new manner.

[26. Sarah P. said the following at 9:36 AM on May 22:]

26

Eliza (#24): I am planning to go find some McLaren to read now, in order to see what I think. But it does seem a little hard to "emerge" and separate yourself consciously from another body and then still expect it to agree with you - to disagree hotly with what others say and expect them immediately to fall in with your opinion. That's like the adolescent who is always shouting at his parents and storming into his room and then coming downstairs for a home-cooked meal at dinnertime.

Questions that stem from pain are always valid, but sometimes there are no answers in this life, and that is valid too. Thus God's final answer to Job. There is no need to be mad at other humans because they can't stop your insides from hurting.

[27. Ronnica said the following at 10:18 AM on May 22:]

27

Awesome post. You've brought to light many aspects of the emergent/emerging church movement that irritate me. Also, I appreciate as you do that they are bringing up some good points about problems in mainstream evangelicialism, I just don't agree with most of their answers.

[28. Jo said the following at 10:37 AM on May 22:]

28

Eliza:
I feel for you. You're part of the body of Christ whether you 'fit in' with Boundless/FOTF or not. And remember that a disagreement (even a strong one) with a view that you raise doesn't equal a rejection of you or your faith. God does use a lot of different avenues to bring people to him. Even if the concerns of people on here about the emergent church are justified, no one can tell you that the route God chose to bring you to him is invalid. And I for one really value your comments on here. :)

Also, I know nothing about the emergent church (hasn't reached the UK yet possibly?) but it strikes me that Jesus himself rarely spoke in direct terms...

[29. Eliza said the following at 10:43 AM on May 22:]

29

Sarah P.

I already said that McLaren did indeed provide answers to questions that others had not. I'm not expecting people to agree with me, I'm just expecting (hoping) for some understanding and acceptance. I'm not having a temper tantrum--I'm really trying to find my place in the body of Christ.

[30. Amir Larijani said the following at 11:55 AM on May 22:]

30

Seems like McLaren is dogmatically opposed to orthodoxy.

That makes him an unorthodox dogmatic. Which, come to think of it, is at least is bad--if not worse--than the orthodox variety.

[31. brx said the following at 1:06 PM on May 22:]

31

Sarah P. (#23) wrote:

"...it seems strange to put "church" and "Christ" in opposition. How do you "follow Christ" alone? To love Christ and to love your neighbor as yourself are practically inextricable. The church..."

I think we agree; I realize now those words "follow Christ alone" were a little ambiguous. What I meant is to follow Christ and no other person or dogma. (I also use little "church" to denote a local gathering - and these days, "church" does not necessarily mean "Christ-centered") When one accepts and follows Christ, they become, inescapably, a part of His Church. But, so often, even as believers, we can get caught up in our own weaknesses & insecurities and end up hiding behind other authorities, boasting of their perfection and dogma rather than trusting in knowing Christ personally.

For me, it was a hard thing to realize the other people and pastors in church leadership, though some are higher in earthly authority, have all the same weaknesses and struggles that I do. They are just fellow followers of Christ, trying to use their gifts, passions, and abilities to serve the best they know how - and all the while still making mistakes and growing. I whole-heartedly agree that God designed us for intimate community - and He gives me courage to pursue that both in and outside of the local Christ-centered gatherings.

God has gifted me in certain ways and with certain perspectives to reach some for the Kingdom while He has gifted CJ Mahaney, Brian McLaren, and Joshua Casteel with slightly different abilities and perspectives to reach others for His Kingdom.

It's a journey and an adventure!
Grace & peace on the way.

[32. brx said the following at 1:40 PM on May 22:]

32

Jo (#28) wrote:

"...emergent church (hasn't reached the UK yet possibly?)..."

Really? A few years ago, I served with an amazing worship singer/song writer who had been involved in a really neat ministry in England that sounded kind of emergent. I think it was called butterfly... something. Anywho, I often think of evangelism in the UK as 'emergent' style because if I recall correctly, it was a couple of UK students (and prayers of many others) that started InterVarsity Christian fellowship decades ago in North America.

Jo (#28) also wrote:

"...but it strikes me that Jesus himself rarely spoke in direct terms..."

Yeah, and He often confounded and frustrated the 'church-people' and church leaders of the day. Many of Jesus' words did not fit easily within their neatly constructed doctrines. But, the people on the outside got it. ...and were welcomed, healed, made clean, and restored. No, BrianM is not Jesus, but I do think he has been empowered by Him.

Grace, peace & adventure!

[33. ScottW said the following at 1:51 PM on May 22:]

33

Hi Eliza,

I have to agree with Tom about his assessment of the emerging church, at least sections of it. I haven't much of McLaren but I hope to in the near future. I have read Bell and he doesn't impress me. He has a few good thoughts in Velvit Elvis, but nothing to honestly make the book worthwhile.

But I don't want to sit around and not try to understand. You say you understand McLaren, so maybe you can help us out. I grabbed this quote from Tom's earlier post by McLaren:
"I must add, though, that I don't believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts. ... I don't hope all Jews or Hindus will become members of the Christian religion. But I do hope all who feel so called will become Jewish or Hindu followers of Jesus."

Can you help us here understand a little more what he is trying to say?

[34. Jim H said the following at 2:19 PM on May 22:]

34

Amir #31.
What do you mean about orthodox dogmatics being almost as bad as unorthodox dogmatics? Are we not to be dogmatic about the essential truths of the Christian faith such as Christ being the only means of salvation, his substitutionary Atonement on the Cross, our justification before God by the imputation of His righteousness to us?

I amd VERY dogmatic about these essentials.

[35. Jo said the following at 2:56 PM on May 22:]

35

brx:
Hmmm, I've never heard of Butterfly something. :) Perhaps there's a difference in terminology then, I've certainly not heard the term 'emergent' to describe any church movement over here, but as I said I know nothing about the emergent church in America so it's possible it is over here under a different name!

In fact, could anyone (maybe you or Eliza) clarify what defines 'emergent' and separates it from mainstream evangelical..? (No replies of 'heresy' please...)

"He often confounded and frustrated the 'church-people' and church leaders of the day. Many of Jesus' words did not fit easily within their neatly constructed doctrines."

Indeed. I find much of life doesn't fit easily within our neatly constructed doctrines, and challenging orthodoxy, even at what seems the most basic level, is very healthy... so long as it comes from a foundation of faith in Jesus and a real desire to serve and honour God in the best way we can. There's a fine line though between promoting the idea that we might sometimes be wrong, and that God might be a lot bigger than the boxes we put him in, and an acceptance of wrong theology on the really important stuff. It's tricky terrain to navigate I think.

[36. BDB said the following at 3:03 PM on May 22:]

36

I don't think I've been to any emergent or emerging church services. But the discussion reminds me of something that happened almost 40 years ago. Suddenly, a bunch of hippies started showing up in church. This was the Jesus Movement.

Personally, I can't help but think that there were a bunch of intercessors who felt that praying for revival amonst the hippies was the best solution. It worked. Some of the regular church folks were not happy - they asked their pastor to pick between the regular church or the hippies. One pastor chose to disciple the hippies.

Perhaps you've heard of Calvary Chapel. I notice a pattern in church history - first God awakens the hearts of a new generation of believers, who then seek out discipleship. Isn't that precisely what we see in the New Testament - letters to new churches from older believers?

I'd never heard of Explo 72 before researching this comment. But it seems that Campus Crusade for Christ and Billy Graham were involved. Heck, apparently it also influenced Pope John Paul II, before he was Pope...

As I understand it, Boundless and FOTF are OK with worship music that includes elements of rock and roll: guitar, keyboard, drums. It seems that emerged out of the Jesus Movement and this Explo 72 conference.

Perhaps God's plan will "emerge" over the next 40 years for this new movement, too...

[37. Eliza said the following at 3:20 PM on May 22:]

37

ScottW,

I agree with Tom's assessment of the AP interview too--it was very disappointing! And I agree that McLaren is purposely elusive a lot of the time. He would rather not dwell on the rightness or wrongness of something, his point being that how we interact with each other and God is just as important as whether we're "right" (like saying telling a gay person they're sinful rather than inviting them to church and being their friend). And because it's important to really ponder the questions people are asking for ourselves instead of simply declaring them to be wrong (especially questions about hell and salvation). Because at the end of the day we all just have faith, and none of us has the exact same faith, or a complete knowledge of God.

McLaren's quote about people being followers of Jesus rather than members of the Christian religion is, I think, quite biblical. In Acts when people became followers of Jesus they did not cease to be Jews or Gentiles--they kept some (not all!!) of their customs and followed Jesus within their culture.

Hindus find "salvation" a number of different ways; a devotional practice like yoga is one example. In my mind, to be a Hindu follower of Jesus means that Jesus is the center of your devotional practice. Aradhna is a band that makes Hindu devotional songs to Jesus.

It's not uncommon for Messianic Jews to consider themselves truly Jewish, because they are followers of the Jewish Messiah.

Islam I don't know so much about. But I do know people in Turkey who teach about Jesus out of the Koran, and who encourage their friends to become a believer in Jesus. Not a "Christian". I think that word has so many negative connotations for them, that mentioning it does more harm than good.

I think it comes down to this: who are we really following? Calvin? Wesley? C.S. Lewis? John MacArthur? In the west we have so much tradition and so many connotations wrapped up in our belief in Jesus which are tangential to the gospel. Why would I convert them to Christianity when they could be converted to Christ? If the Holy Spirit indwells us both and we are both on a path to God (Father/Son/Holy Spirit), that's all that really matters.

Does that sound unorthodox to you :) ?

[38. Jim H. said the following at 5:44 PM on May 22:]

38

Eliza #37,
It is possible to be a Christian and retain aspects of your culture and ethnicity, but you cannot maintain a belief system that contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture. To be unconcerned with blatant contradictions is symptomatic of postmodernist thinking.

The final authority is not MaCarthur, not Calvin nor anyone else, but Holy Scripture (and these men would heartily agree with that statement). So a particular belief system must be tested against what Scripture says.

Let's first look briefly at Hinduism. It is polytheistic. To quote from a Christian Research Institute (www.equip.org) paper on Hinduism: “Beyond the principal deities of the Trimurti, it is estimated that there are 330 million other gods in Hinduism” (Dean Halverson, “Compact Guide to World Religions”, 87-89, Bethany House 1996)

In contrast, here is what the Bible has to say about other “gods.” Isaiah 45:42 (ESV)
“Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.”

Let’s now look at Buddhism. Again, I will quote from CRI resources:

"Buddha taught that spiritual deliverance was found by letting go of desire and the quest to satisfy the nonexistent soul, and by detaching oneself from impermanent things. This teaching is the Third Noble Truth. The Fourth Noble Truth is that salvation is achieved through effort, which Buddha called “the eightfold path.”

In other words, salvation is by human works in Buddhism. In contrast, the Bible teaches that salvation is by God’s grace which is obtained by putting our faith in Christ and in Christ alone.

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.

John 14:6 (ESV)
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Let’s finally look briefly at Islam. Here is what the Quran says about Jesus.

4:157
And for their saying: We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah, and they killed him not, nor did they cause his death on the cross, but he was made to appear to them as such. And certainly those who differ therein are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge about it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for certain:

Here is what the Bible says: (just one of many, many verses attesting to Christ’s death on the cross)

Romans 5:6-8
For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

To summarize - this notion that Christianity can be syncretized with other religions with clearly contradictory belief systems is unbiblical, utter nonsense and clearly unorthodox. There is only one path to God and it is through Christ alone as Jesus Himself said in John 14:6.

[39. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:50 PM on May 22:]

39

JimH asks:

What do you mean about orthodox dogmatics being almost as bad as unorthodox dogmatics? Are we not to be dogmatic about the essential truths of the Christian faith such as Christ being the only means of salvation, his substitutionary Atonement on the Cross, our justification before God by the imputation of His righteousness to us?

I amd VERY dogmatic about these essentials.

As am I. In fact, I am referring to otherwise orthodox believers--who otherwise affirm the fundamentals--who are dogmatic with respect to tangential matters, such as the five points of Calvinism, KJV-only, Landmarkism, Closed Communion, Dispensationalism, pretribulational rapture...

Did that clear it up?

[40. Matt said the following at 11:05 PM on May 22:]

40

Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck just released a great book on the growing Emergent Christian movement and what a load it truly is. Why We're Not Emergent. It is a must read.

[41. Jim H said the following at 9:20 AM on May 23:]

41

Amir #40,
Yes, that cleared it up. I don't think the beliefs you listed are essentials of the Christian faith and should not be points of division among believers, even though I know they frequently are points of division.

Of course that begs the question on what the "essentials" are. In my view the essentials have to do with the following:

1. Identity of Christ - one of the three Persons of the Holy Trinity.
2. What He did - came to earth in human form, lived a sinless life and died on the Cross as an atonement for our sin and rose from the dead to be our intercessor before God
3. Salvation - we are justified before God when we put our faith in Jesus and His righteousness is then imputed to us.
4. Jesus is the ONLY means of salvation
5. Holy Scripture is the inspired, inerrant Word of God (the original texts, that is) and is the final authority on matters of theology and how we should live our lives. This essential is usally listed first in the various Confessions of Faith (i.e. Westminster), because the above points hang on this axiom.

Whole books have been written on essential truths of the Christian faith and I realize that there are other points that may be considered essential, but these are the ones I think of first. KJV-only and other such contoversies are huge distractions. It is OK to disagree on some of these beliefs, but such trivialities should not divide God's people. As an example, I am Calvinist, but I have some Christian brothers I care a lot about who are Baptists and I sometimes attend Baptist church services. I don't think believing in the 5 points of Calvinism is necessary to be saved and it does not bother me that my Christian brothers diagree with me on this issue.

[42. Eliza said the following at 10:01 AM on May 23:]

42

Jim H. #38,

Of course. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life and Scripture is the authoritative word of God. I never denied that (and neither does McLaren). Like you said, cultural things can be kept, just like cultural elements of western Christianity can be discarded. Sometimes the label "Christian" does more harm than good--that was my only point.

But a couple other thoughts are: do these other religious cultures offer insight into God that our culture doesn't? what elements of Christianity (an authentically eastern religion) have been syncretized with western culture and actually water down the gospel of Jesus?

I've heard several definitions of "emerging" or "emergent". The main point is that definitions are avoided, because our faith is fluid; God is consistently revealing truth to us and we are growing in faith. Also, because the whole point is to get as far away from institutionalism as possible (which is why Gary Thomas's paragraph 3 from yesterday's article is so ironic). However, if you really need one ;) here is a decent chart. Probably everyone would protest their location! But it seems generally accurate.

A person can be emerging/ent and Evangelical at the same time. I am, and McLaren says he is. A person is emerging if they view their faith in a more postmodern way--with more questions than answers. A person is always a seeker, just is in various stages of seeking.

Some emphases that freak Evangelicals out, but which I think are quite biblical:
- Jesus is the Word of God, not our NIV or NASB. The Bible is authoritative, but there is more emphasis on the spirit of the law than the letter.

- Regarding hell and exclusivism/ inclusivism: if Jesus didn't specifically say it to us, it's not really any of our business. There are a lot of things we don't know and that seem unfair to us, but we need to trust that God will treat everyone fairly and justly and mercifully, like he's treated us.

-Regarding righteousness, the emphasis is more on our good acts towards our neighbors and less on personal holiness. The idea is that we are made holy (in our hearts and minds) by working out our faith in the world.

**Disclaimer: just because I left out something like sexual purity or the importance of traditional theological thought does not mean it's not important!! It just means that this is just a blog comment and can only go so far :).

[43. Eliza said the following at 10:04 AM on May 23:]

43

Jim H. #38,

Of course. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life and Scripture is the authoritative word of God. I never denied that (and neither does McLaren). Like you said, cultural things can be kept, just like cultural elements of western Christianity can be discarded. Sometimes the label "Christian" does more harm than good--that was my only point.

But a couple other thoughts are: do these other religious cultures offer insight into God that our culture doesn't? what elements of Christianity (an authentically eastern religion) have been syncretized with western culture and actually water down the gospel of Jesus?

I've heard several definitions of "emerging" or "emergent". The main point is that definitions are avoided, because our faith is fluid; God is consistently revealing truth to us and we are growing in faith. Also, because the whole point is to get as far away from institutionalism as possible (which is why Gary Thomas's paragraph 3 from yesterday's article is so ironic). However, if you really need one ;) here is a decent chart. Probably everyone would protest their location! But it seems generally accurate.

A person can be emerging/ent and Evangelical at the same time. I am, and McLaren says he is. A person is emerging if they view their faith in a more postmodern way--with more questions than answers. A person is always a seeker, just is in various stages of seeking.

Some emphases that freak Evangelicals out, but which I think are quite biblical:
- Jesus is the Word of God, not our NIV or NASB. The Bible is authoritative, but there is more emphasis on the spirit of the law than the letter. (John 1:1-5)

- Regarding hell and exclusivism/ inclusivism: if Jesus didn't specifically say it to us, it's not really any of our business. There are a lot of things we don't know and that seem unfair to us, but we need to trust that God will treat everyone fairly and justly and mercifully, like he's treated us. (John 21:20-23)

-Regarding righteousness, the emphasis is more on our good acts towards our neighbors and less on personal holiness. The idea is that we are made holy (in our hearts and minds) by working out our faith in the world. (James 1:27; Philippians 2:12-16)

**Disclaimer: just because I left out something like sexual purity or the importance of traditional theological thought does not mean it's not important!! It just means that this is just a blog comment and can only go so far :).

[44. Jim H said the following at 12:08 PM on May 23:]

44

Eliza, #42,
I guess it is not clear to me the point of the emergent movement.

1. There is nothing new with the idea of following the spirit of the law as well as the letter of the law. That is a classic belief that Jesus pounded home on the Sermon on the Mount. For example, take Matthew 5:21-5:22 (NIV)

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder,a and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment."

Of course, there are many other examples where Jesus underscores that it is not enough to obey the letter of the Law, but the heart most also be pure. THIS IS NOTHING NEW.

2. The idea of our actions towards others being a measuring stick of our degree of faith is nothing new. James strongly emphasizes this when he says (paraphrasing) "if there are no deeds, there there must be no faith, faith without works is dead." Living out our faith by showing love to others is sanctifying and makes us more holy. THIS IS NOTHING NEW.

But besides the fact the some of the points you are making about the beliefs of the emergent chruch are nothing new, there are several statements you make that are potentially disturbing.

"God is consistently revealing truth to us"

It is one thing to learn something new from the Bible or for the Holy Spirit to reveal an insight on a passage that you had not seen before (such as Martin Luther's Erureka moment with Romans 1:17), but are you saying that God is providing you with new Revelation, not contained in Scripture? Do you believe that God is providing you with new extra-Bibilcal Revelation? If that is the case, this belief is clearly unorthodox. The canon of Scripture is closed.

The other disturbing statement was that the emergent movement applies the ideas of postmodernism to their faith. Postmodernism basically says there are no absolute truths and logical contradictions are embraced. In short, Postmodernism embraces nonsense.

The other thing I have noticed is the tendancy to speak in generalities, such as your question about how Western culture may have distorted original Christianity which started in Israel with Jesus and the disciples. Can you give me some concrete examples of Western distortions of Christianity?

It seems to me that the Emergent movement is the product of someone who wants to make a name for himself by discovering something "new", or putting a new spin on things. The vast majority of people who think they have discovered something new think this because they are not very well read.

Now with all that said, I will say that the litmus test of a Christian is if they have placed their faith in Christ and whether or not they believe Christ is the Son of God who died for our sins and was resurrected. So I would never doubt anyone's salvation just because they are in the emergent movement as long as they adhere to these fundamentals. But it does seems that the emergent movement is flirting with dangerous postmodern ideology. In fact, I would go as far to say that the goal of interpreting Scripture through the lens of Postmodernism is to make the principles contained in scripture malleable instead of concrete, so it can be interpreted in line with someone's agenda.

[45. Jo said the following at 1:43 PM on May 23:]

45

Eliza;
Thanks for the link to the chart and article, that clarifies things a bit more. I like the idea of being comfortable with questions and not needing clear, immediate answers to everything - that's something I think many Christians lack. If I was to place myself on that chart (without knowing really who any of the people mentioned are), I guess I might be somewhere in that overlap between Evangelical and Emerging. Have you read 'The Ironic Christian's Companion' by Patrick Henry? I liked it a lot, there was much I disagreed with (he sounds emerging bordering on emergent from that chart), but a lot of truth as well, and a lot of warmth. :)

[46. brx said the following at 2:25 PM on May 23:]

46

Eliza (#42),

For someone who says she'd like to be more rational and cool-headed about it, that's a beautiful, rational, grace-filled reply! ...are you married yet? ;)

I like the mini comparison table in the blog post referenced. Below is a link to an article that I share to help explain part of the emergent/emerging church idea to slightly less academic types who ask. Though it's from one of those freebie, frequently liberal, community papers that typically give a negative outlook on Christianity, I was quite impressed by the seemingly fair view.

http://www.metrosantacruz.com/metro-santa-cruz/05.31.06/vintage-faith-church-0622.html

And in further fairness, a few months later, the neighboring county's freebie paper published an article about a big-box church that has been having a positive impact in Monterey.

Grace & peace.

[47. Eliza said the following at 2:40 PM on May 23:]

47

Jo,

No, I haven't heard of that book, but I will definitely look it up! Thanks for the reference :).

Jim H. #43

1) I agree that there is absolutely nothing new that emerging/ent people have come up with. I think "they" would be the first to admit it, too. A lot of "emergent" congregations adopt really old liturgy because they grew up in more modern, contemporary Evangelical services and they enjoy the meaning behind the old rituals. There is a lot of emphasis on Christian thought and tradition of old--not just Protestant, but Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox as well. Nobody claims to be original :).

And I agree that theoretically Evangelicals follow the spirit rather than the letter of the law, but practically it doesn't often come across that way. I'm talking about arguments about which translation method is most accurate and whether a gender-neutral Bible is okay and whether a specific verse is literal or figurative. And the passion with which people insist that their view is right--often that focus on *rightness* overshadows what *goodness* could be done.

2) I certainly hope God is consistently revealing new, extra-biblical revelation to me! If not, my faith is stagnant or shrinking. Of course I don't mean news like, "Jesus is coming back in 2 weeks" or "here is a prophecy about America" (although many Evangelical traditions do believe in prophecy). I mean learning. Nothing new. Nothing other than the Holy Spirit opening our eyes in new ways to the character of God and how we, as humans, can experience him. Everyone has little epiphanies about things they understood before, but on a smaller level.

Again, nothing new. Yes this is what every Evangelical church teaches on a regular basis. So what makes emerging/ent stuff different?

Probably semantics, culture, emphasis--just coating stuff that helps some people understand God better. It's not that people are applying postmodernism to their faith--it's that they are postmodern, and the faith that Evangelicals preach (or the way they preach it) just doesn't make any sense to them. In the same way postmodernism doesn't make sense to you.

Also, your average postmodernist is not a nonsensical there-is-no-absolute-truth type. I certainly don't know anyone who thinks that. Of course there is Absolute Truth, but how are you to know that you know what it is? You cannot know anything. You just have to believe that you know. And there is always a chance that you are wrong and someone else is right. Or, perhaps you are "right", based on your relative knowledge, understanding, and bias. So, your truth is relative. It depends on factors. Factors which you might not even know about :).

So, that is why consistent learning, questioning, searching is so important. It is the only way to keep finding more Truth.

About western distortions of Christianity--I was just asking the question. Perhaps you don't think there are any. Personally, I think our tendency to examine scripture like a textbook and/or devotional volume rather than a set of spiritual documents is kind of syncretistic and western. And also the integration of Christianity and politics associated with mainly one party. Perhaps also our disproportionate focus on sexuality over other things (like community and kindness).

And perhaps not :). It's something I need to think more about.

Sorry this post was so long. Main points: 1) right, nothing is new, 2) searching for Truth is a life-long endeavor.

[48. Tami said the following at 3:11 PM on May 23:]

48

Interesting article, brx! Thanks for sharing it. BTW I knew Chip Ingram was from Santa Cruz Bible, but I didn't know Vintage Faith had a connection to that church. You learn something new every day!

[49. Jim H said the following at 3:37 PM on May 23:]

49

Eliza,
Thank you for the additional explanation. You sound like a very reasonable person with a lot of good common sense and I admire your humility and willingness to share your experience with the emergent movement. I have truly enjoyed this dialogue with you.

I guess my fundamental concern is with this simple statement that you made: "You cannot know anything."

This statement is false. I'll admit there are some things we do not know and maybe cannot know for certain (i.e. eschatology - the exact sequence and unfolding of end time events), but there are some things that are certain and knowable like 2+2=4. The means of salvation is also certain and knowable:

Romans 10:9 (NIV)
That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Understanding of the Hindu religion or Islam will never change that fundamental truth - that faith in Jesus is the only way to salvation.

Let me ask you this: why would the God of the universe who loves us and wants a relationship with us create a world in which "You cannot know anything." That would be a world of nonsense and if we "can't know anything," how could we come to know God if nothing (including God) is knowable? How could we understand how God wants us to live if we "cannot know anything?"

And the statement "that we can't know anything" is in itself circular and self defeating. If we "can't know anything" how can you say that statement is true?

I will say again - Postmodernism is an effort to pass off nonsense as a "sophisticated", new way of thinking.

[50. Eliza said the following at 3:37 PM on May 23:]

50

Aww, brx, you just totally made my day!! :) Unfortunately you are about 8 months too late. But fortunate for my husband. And also for me ;).

I looked up that link--great article! I think they hit the nail on the head with a couple points, especially about people joining who have had a crisis of faith, and about people who are looking for authenticity and the shift from propositions to narratives. Good stuff!

-->For anyone who tries to go to that
link (@ brx #45), it will just take to you to the paper's main page; just search for "Vintage Faith" and you'll find the article.

[51. brx said the following at 4:00 PM on May 23:]

51

Jim H. (#43) wrote:

"I guess it is not clear to me the point of the emergent movement."

Jim, that is absolutely A-OK. Modernism, Postmodernism, Emergent/Emerging, and other such labels are not rigidly defined either -- because they represent people. And, people are not mere mathematical, physical, constants. (though, some statisticians might argue otherwise) People are more fluid, morphing and growing in one direction or another.

How did you become a follower of Christ? Do you expect all people to become believers in the same way?

Your experiences as a follower of Christ and how you got to the point you're at in your walk are not all the same as others and thus your perspective is likely a little different. God did that on purpose. In His unique creativity, God does not bring each believer to worship Jesus by first having them agree to a five-part list of essentials. Instead, God seems to build relationships and the essentials often come bit-by-bit as their relationship with God develops.

One way to try and understand the emerging church: make friends with some non-Christians and share your life with them -- not for the purpose of converting them in 3~6months, but just for the purpose of loving them as a genuine friend. Trust God to lead them to ask the questions rather than using some '10-steps to making a disciple' program or Bible study outline.

Grace, peace, and adventure.

[52. BRX said the following at 4:29 PM on May 23:]

52

BRX,
I again fail to see the point of the emergent movement. I have done the things you mentioned because of my convictions from reading the Scripture and growing love for Christ, not because of some supposedly new ideas from the emergent movement.

When I worked for Texas Instruments, I made a point of making friends with my Muslim co-workers in hopes that I would one day have the opportunity to share the Gospel with them. Well that opportunity came to fruition when they invited me to dinner because they were curious about Christianity (they knew I was a Christian and wanted to know what I believed). That evening I explained the Gospel to them as best I could. I left TI a few years ago, so I am not sure if any of them has come to Christ, but the point is that this opportunity to share the Gospel came because of friendships I developed with them. And you know what - I did not need the emergent movement with its Postmodern nonsense telling me how to do this. It came naturally because of my growing love for Christ and my desire to share the good news of my Savior with them.

[53. Jim H said the following at 3:58 PM on May 25:]

53

Post 51 was actually posted by me, not BRX. As as was thinking and typing, my mind must have drifted into E-Mail mode and I typed in BRX in the "Name" field as if I were addressing him in an E-Mail. My apologies for the confusion.

[54. Eliza said the following at 9:07 AM on May 28:]

54

Hi Jim H.,

Let me ask you this: why would the God of the universe who loves us and wants a relationship with us create a world in which "You cannot know anything." That would be a world of nonsense and if we "can't know anything," how could we come to know God if nothing (including God) is knowable? How could we understand how God wants us to live if we "cannot know anything?"

Let me as you this in return: how do you know there is a God who loves you and wants a relationship with you? How do you know that you are not wrong about the things you think are right? How do you know that the wages of sin is death or that Paul of Tarsus even wrote those words or that we're not misunderstanding his meaning? How do you know the Bible is "inspired"? How do you know you know what "inspired" means?

Probably because there is good evidence, which would make your knowledge probable, although not absolute. Or, as people often say, because you "just know", which is really another way of saying "I choose to believe".

I shouldn't have used the word "anything", because you're right--that is nonsensical and ridiculous. There are things I do know, to different degrees:
-I know am female
-I know English
-I know how to drive
-I know that 2x7=14
-I know Boston, MA
-I know my husband loves me
-I know the Bible is accurate
-I know about God
-I know God

I think you would agree that knowing 2+2=4 is very different from knowing God, or knowing how to obtain salvation.

(This is a paraphrase from a chapter in Brian McLaren's book, Finding Faith: The Search for What Makes Sense)

I strongly believe (might even say "know"!) that a person cannot fully come to know the fullness of God on this earth--we can only know whichever part He chooses to reveal. And we can only know that part through our cultures, prejudices and sinful natures, which further limits our knowledge.

After all, if we could know God, that would make him rather small and pitiful. Small enough for my mind to wrap around is way too small. In my opinion.

The reason I said "we cannot know anything" was because I was including the gaps in our knowledge of science and history as well. It's a common saying that the "winners write the history books", which leaves out a lot of history's loser's facts and events. Even science is the art of loosely holding on to what you know for now, until a new hypothesis comes along to enlighten or broaden or even destroy your previous knowledge.

Finally, I think it's perfectly fine for you to find postmodernist, emergent thinking unhelpful, un-useful, and weird. You certainly don't need it to share the gospel or win anyone to Christ. If it doesn't work for you--great! Stick with what makes most sense to you.

The point of the emergent movement is to make Christianity clearer to people like me. For me it is anything but postmodern nonsense passing itself off as sophistication. I'm not looking for sophisticated thinking--I'm looking for faith that makes sense. And this makes sense to me.

Another person above said that emergent/postmodernist people come off as arrogant, cynical and judgmental. I'd generally have to agree with that. I've spend the past 3 years or so being all of those things! And during my time of doubt and perplexity, I really appreciated the Christians who did not respond in kind, with judgment and arrogance. Those were the ones whose faith I respected the most; they were proving their own points. It just so happens that many of them had gone through the same doubt/ perplexity/ arrogance and judgment that I had, and had come out more gracious for it. Generally the Evangelical ("I am right, you are wrong, and I know it") crowd weren't so interested in a faith journey--they were more interested in spiritual results.

So, perhaps you find the emergent church wishy-washy and annoying. That is a personal preference. To myself and many others it wrestles with Christian faith in the world we live in and understand.

[55. Eliza said the following at 9:24 AM on May 28:]

55

I just noticed that today's Boundless article once again critiques the Emergent movement from the perspective of someone who is not a fan. I would LOVE (and I think a lot of thinkers who come to Boundless would too) to see/hear an interview with someone who is either a leader in the Emerging/ent Church or at least an advocate. I feel like a lot of mischaracterizations are getting out there.

I'm sure Brian McLaren would love to make himself available for a phone interview :).

[56. Tami said the following at 11:56 AM on May 28:]

56

Eliza -- I ask in seriousness, who would you suggest represent the emerging church/Emergent?

It seems like no sooner than a person tries to find someone willing to represent emerging/Emergent, than that person says "I'm not a representative, it's an organic movement." Or, someone who *is* a fan of emerging/Emergent says, "That person doesn't really represent what I think of as emerging... they're too [whatever]" or "you can't define emerging by a person."

Case in point: Mark Driscoll. Is he emerging "enough"? He certainly was a part of the movement at one point. Or how about Dan Kimball? In the article brx posted, he says, "I've been saying that I'm a fundamentalist without being seen as a fundamentalist." That would certainly rankle a lot of the emergents I know.

I've tried to like the emerging church movement; some of my best friends are emerging. ;) [In all seriousness, I was in a small group led by someone who identifies himself with the movement and has written articles and books under that "label" (so to speak), so it's not altogether unfamiliar to me in knowledge or experience.] But when push comes to shove, I can't handle the reluctance to define what it is that they actually stand for. For that reason I think it's hard to find one person to represent it. You'd probably need a panel of people. But knowing emergents, the conversation would probably be hours long. ;)

BTW -- there are "thinkers" outside the emerging church, too. :)

[57. Christina (in green) said the following at 1:21 PM on May 28:]

57

I think you would agree that knowing 2+2=4 is very different from knowing God, or knowing how to obtain salvation

Actually... in some ways, mathematics is VERY similar to knowing God.

As someone with a BA in Math, I feel somewhat qualified to make that statement...

My breakthrough in understanding numbers came when I saw numbers the same way I saw my faith. My 8th grade math book said this:

Numbers are symbols

They are a symbol of an actual reality. And with those symbols, we are somehow able to describe, rather accurately, many fields of science, and have a better understanding of the world.

All standing on a premise - that with a certain amount of logic and a large amount of faith, we accept as truth.

As it is with believing in God. Yes, we can have some logic to stand on, but the acceptance of the existence of a God and that Scripture is God-breathed and true is a premise largely accepted on Faith.

In fact, I could argue that every logical argument begins with a premise that is, in fact, largely accepted by faith...with some modicum of logic.

And yet, God gave us powers of reasoning that go beyond any other created creatures' gifts. And we largely use it to EDIFY a faith that we have already accepted as truth. With scripture and "God is real" at the foundation that every logical building block stands on, we are able to KNOW (with limitations) our world - and consequently, God.

I will readily admit, I know little about the emergent church. What I do know doesn't recommend itself, although that could be because I've been subjecting myself to very biased information.

What I do know, even from Eliza, is that feelings seem to be given more credence over logic. Not faith, but feelings.

I think there needs to be a reformation in the church, but I don't think the emergent church as the right idea. Logic and Faith need to be accepted as going hand in hand and complimentary and necessary for the whole.

[58. Eliza said the following at 2:09 PM on May 28:]

58

Tami,

Sorry if the "thinkers" thing came out wrong! I meant all people who like to think and have intellectual conversations. Like you and Jim H., above. I just think, even if you disagree with them, you might appreciate a different, more positive perspective. I know I would :).

Like I said above, I'd personally ask Brian McLaren to talk about the movement, mostly because he's been there from the beginning and he knows so many people. Rob Bell or Dan Kimball or Tony Jones would be fine too, though. It doesn't really matter what their personal opinions are about stuff, I think they all can give a general idea of what the point is.

I don't know much about Mark Driscoll except that I've heard he's kind of had a falling out with some emerging leaders. Maybe he wouldn't be such an advocate because of personal issues.

It wouldn't be so much about personal stances on issues (maybe Dan Kimball's comment would "rankle" some emergents--it doesn't bother me at all and in fact sounds very emergent to me!) Just someone who calls themselves emergent, knows people and likes their message, enjoys their perspective...that kind of thing.

For example, I'm American, but I certainly don't speak for all Americans. That doesn't mean I couldn't contribute helpfully in a foreign interview.

[59. Eliza said the following at 3:25 PM on May 28:]

59

Christina (in green):

As it is with believing in God. Yes, we can have some logic to stand on, but the acceptance of the existence of a God and that Scripture is God-breathed and true is a premise largely accepted on Faith.

In fact, I could argue that every logical argument begins with a premise that is, in fact, largely accepted by faith...with some modicum of logic.

Exactly my point! Better said than I :).

What I do know, even from Eliza, is that feelings seem to be given more credence over logic. Not faith, but feelings.

I'm definitely sorry you think that. And kind of confused as to where you get that idea? If I was just focusing on feelings, I'd be a hedonist. As it is, my brain (and faith) is taking me towards Christianity. Something every feeling has, in the past, urged me to disown. Even sometimes now. Personally, when I read my comments above I see much more logic than emotion. The emotion comes in when something I hold dear is attacked or maligned, as it would with anyone.

I hope you read some of the writings of these emerging/ent authors and see what you think for yourself.

[60. Tami said the following at 3:58 PM on May 28:]

60

Eliza -- thanks for your comments.

I think I see what you're getting at: you would like to see an article that describes the movement not in terms of what it is *not*, but in terms of what it *is*... written from the perspective of someone who considers himself or herself a proponent, and written with the intention of stating (in general terms) the thinking behind it. Am I right?

[61. John said the following at 9:07 AM on May 29:]

61

The zeal with which individuals "know" something is hilarious to me.

Everybody "knows" truth, but few know the Truth.

Yet it's always the "religious" or "christians" who are closed minded.

LOL.

Have a nice day "knowing" you're right and questioning reality.

[62. Eliza said the following at 11:47 AM on May 29:]

62

Tami #60,

Yep, that's pretty much it :).

Christina (in green) #57,

After submitting my comment I realized that I had something else to say about feelings. It's true that it's not a good idea to base every decision or perspective on how you are feeling at a certain moment, but it is also true that we, as humans created in the image of God, were given feelings for a reason. In some cases they give us more information and are more trustworthy than our logic may be. In any case, I think it is very important for someone to feel generally good about their faith. If they have a consistently bad feeling about it, then there's something rotten somewhere that needs to be sniffed out.

[63. Jim H said the following at 5:34 PM on May 30:]

63

Eliza,
Thank you for the additional explanation of your viewpoint. I think I am beginning to understand it a lot better. This thread went idle for a few days and I thought it was dead or I would have responded sooner.

The fundamental premise that I accept (somewhat on faith, but also with some logic and history thrown in) is that the original texts of the Bible are the inerrant and inspired Word of God. Once you accept that premise, the world becomes black and white rather than shades of gray because the Bible is crystal clear on matters of supreme importance such as how to live your life and how you can become saved. It is true that we cannot know God in His complete fullness on earth, but God has graciously provided us with His Word so that we can know many aspects of His character (holiness, love, mercy, hatred of sin, etc.) and most importantly, how to become saved.

If you don't accept the premise that the Word of God is inspired and inerrant (in the original manuscripts), I could definitely see how things could become more "fuzzy." I think that is our fundamental point of difference.

[64. Abbie said the following at 10:22 PM on Oct 21:]

64

Great post! Thank you.