Get your own advance copy of McLaren's Book

[Skip]

The appeal of Post-modernism is a utopian vision of everybody working together for Christ in whatever moral state they happen to be in at the moment. It has great appeal, but no hope -- hope is replaced with tolerance. Emergent Christianity brings the individual into subjection to the moral lowest common denominator. But true hope is growth toward God through Christ, bringing oneself into complete subjection to Christ.

I hearken back to McLaren's explanation about the five-year moratorium -- it was three times as long as the initial post, and yet contained no position. Neither did McLaren take a position in his book with Campolo. I was not surprised, because there is no possible position for Post-modernism to take. Morality is foreign to Post-modernism, for morality is Modern.

When one serves a God who takes positions, a worldview that refuses to take positions such as Post-modernism must be seen as fundamentally flawed. That fundamental flaw is revealed most clearly on questions of behavior and questions of doctrine. Emergent Christianity is build upon deconstruction -- the glory is in total freedom from rules.

Such a position is liberating -- total freedom, like the young person finally freed from the rules of the parent's house! Eventually, however, there comes the time that the young person matures to the point of realizing that there have to be rules and boundaries -- a budget, for example. I saw evidence of that dawning realization in some of the comments to McLaren's moratorium and subsequent explanation. Post-modernism will be drawn upon, then overdrawn, and finally found bankrupt -- for it is a credit card with no balance and no means to pay.

Finally, Post-modernism is inherently unable to comprehend its own flaw. In fact, it is inherently unable to relate to the ordered nature of God. Obvious example: Sin is, at the root, a concept that Post-modernism cannot comprehend. For the concept of absolute moral right and wrong -- Good and Evil -- would be seen as quite Modern -- again, back to the "problem" of issues relating to homosexuality. How can something that two consenting adults want to do be Evil? -- that is beyond the power of Post-modern comprehension. Thus the Emergent Christian is eventually rendered blind to sin -- to the concept that God could, by His authority, forbid an action, or define standards of behavior.

I hope that you will continue to carefully consider and test the course of Post-modernism. Please don't ignore it's warning signs.

[OldDad]

Excellent, Skip!

:amen:

May I have permission to post that on my blog?  I'll be glad to make attribution, just PM me with the details.

OD

[Lee Freeman]

Skip and BOG,
Like the guy or don't.  I'm not trying to convince you one way or another.  Lee is apparantly finding McLaren's writing to be profitable.  I will go so far as to say that McLaren's writing and perspectives have helped to restore, refresh, reinvigorate, and save my faith.  His Christlike humility challenges me personally.  Do I agree with everything he says/writes?  Of course not.  However, I will follow Brian McLaren as he follows Christ any day.
AE

Yeah, I'm willing to read McClaren for myself, rather than merely reading short soundbites about him, then make up my own mind. When I'm done I may ultimately agree with all, or only  some, of what he says. But I have to say that so far, he has said some some thought-provoking and challenging things.

Pax.

So far as I know, not a single poster has made any assertions about McLaren based solely upon things written about him.
I see that posters have read McLaren, found McLaren's own words on the internet, and either linked or posted his words.

Therefore, it appears that you are either confusing this thread with some other one you're posting to on some other board, or you're engaging in marginalizing other posters based upon your own preconceptions and misconceptions.

Perhaps your rush to embrace McLaren is simply an extension of your own acceptance of Christian syncretism (under the guise of ecumenism), and realizing that in your worldview it's no great stretch to accept the fusion of Christianity and any other religious system.

At what point have I given you cause to believe I'm a religious relativist or syncretist? Jesus said "no one comes to the Father but by me," and I believe it. For that matter, I'm extremely skeptical about much that is post-modern.

However, like CS Lewis and Mother Theresa,  I do not believe that genuine seekers after religious Truth who happen to be adherents of other religions are automatically wrong across the board in everything they believe. As Adam said, whatever Judaism, or Islam, for example, believes that is objectively True, must come from God. Like Mother Theresa and Lewis said, our job as Christians is to try to steer these people onto the path leading to Christ.

And I very much believe that Jesus Christ, as the only begotten Son of God, the image of the invisible God, is bigger than any one interpretation of him by any one sect of Christianity. No one sect of Christianity has a corner on Christian Truth. Not the Orthodox Church, or the Catholic Church, or the Church of Christ, or any other Protestant sect. All we know about God is what He in His infinite mercy has chosen to reveal about Himself. As Christians, followers of Christ, we're all in this together and no one Christian group has an edge or advantage over any other Christian group.

As for my "rush to embrace McClaren" you weren't paying attention. I regard McClaren as I do CS Lewis, Alexander Campbell, Benedict XVI or Charles Stanley; I read their works and decide for myself. I don't agree with everything any of these authors has written. But there is much spiritual wisdom to be found in them all. The same goes with McClaren. I said two or three times that I don't agree with everything he says and may ultimately come away with a negative view of his books, however I do agree with at least some of what the man says.

Pax.[/color]

[kanham]

Skip,

I think you raise some very valid points. I have read too much relativism lately and I find it shocking. When loving someone enough to say no is viewed as unloving has Satan not just foisted the greatest lie on us all.

So I agree with your observation that there has to be a foundation, there must be truth. The very nature of God says that there is an absolute, there must be a common reality. Where I think you may misunderstand is that to say truth can be found anywhere is no way relativist and is actually saying that truth is absolute. It is only saying that truth, because it is absolute, can be found by anyone.

The point then moves to whether or not the person acknowledges who that truth came from. That is the crux to me of the matter. All truth comes from God so unless a person acknowledges that then they have no hope.

That is not denying absolutes, its actually saying absolutes are far greater then even we Christ-followers can understand. That is not making God smaller to me it returns him to his proper place as sovereign Lord over all.

Trust me I do here your concern and I am behind you. I have been shocked at what I have been reading, but some points being made are valid and do IMO need to be made.

[Lee Freeman]

I don't think anyone here is saying to give up Truth-certainly I'm not; I'm with CS Lewis in a belief in a Universal Moral Law. Absolute Truth does exist and should be recognized as such. Relativism does no one any good. However there are BIG TRUTHS and little truths, and we need to be able to distinguish which is which.

A lot of McClaren's problem (if I understand him correctly) seems to be with what he views as a narrow-minded, self-righteous attitude among Christians which gives them the idea that they, or their sect or denomination, have/has a corner on Christian Truth that nobody else, nor any other sect or denomination has, and a smug self-assurance displayed by some Christians that all non-Christians are going to hell regardless. McClaren thinks we should leave the judging to God.

Pax vobiscum.

[Barry H. Manners]

Skip and BOG,
Like the guy or don't.  I'm not trying to convince you one way or another.  Lee is apparantly finding McLaren's writing to be profitable.  I will go so far as to say that McLaren's writing and perspectives have helped to restore, refresh, reinvigorate, and save my faith.  His Christlike humility challenges me personally.  Do I agree with everything he says/writes?  Of course not.  However, I will follow Brian McLaren as he follows Christ any day.
AE

Yeah, I'm willing to read McClaren for myself, rather than merely reading short soundbites about him, then make up my own mind. When I'm done I may ultimately agree with all, or only  some, of what he says. But I have to say that so far, he has said some some thought-provoking and challenging things.

Pax.

So far as I know, not a single poster has made any assertions about McLaren based solely upon things written about him.
I see that posters have read McLaren, found McLaren's own words on the internet, and either linked or posted his words.

Therefore, it appears that you are either confusing this thread with some other one you're posting to on some other board, or you're engaging in marginalizing other posters based upon your own preconceptions and misconceptions.

Perhaps your rush to embrace McLaren is simply an extension of your own acceptance of Christian syncretism (under the guise of ecumenism), and realizing that in your worldview it's no great stretch to accept the fusion of Christianity and any other religious system.

I'm not ever going to be part of some Eucumenical Movement.  :;):


Do you realize how stupid eucumenicalism looks to those who are not part of it?  You have all of these different Christian denominations with contradicting doctrines, plans of salvation, ect. all the while trying to pretend that such is not the case.  Add on the fact that some are trying to get the Muslims, the Buddhists, and Hindus in it too makes it come off as an even bigger joke.

BH has thrown his platinum, and he hopes not at platypuses.[/color]

[Skip]

Skip,

I think you raise some very valid points. I have read too much relativism lately and I find it shocking. When loving someone enough to say no is viewed as unloving has Satan not just foisted the greatest lie on us all.

So I agree with your observation that there has to be a foundation, there must be truth. The very nature of God says that there is an absolute, there must be a common reality. Where I think you may misunderstand is that to say truth can be found anywhere is no way relativist and is actually saying that truth is absolute. It is only saying that truth, because it is absolute, can be found by anyone.

The point then moves to whether or not the person acknowledges who that truth came from. That is the crux to me of the matter. All truth comes from God so unless a person acknowledges that then they have no hope.

That is not denying absolutes, its actually saying absolutes are far greater then even we Christ-followers can understand. That is not making God smaller to me it returns him to his proper place as sovereign Lord over all.

Trust me I do here your concern and I am behind you. I have been shocked at what I have been reading, but some points being made are valid and do IMO need to be made.

I think I understand what you're saying, and I think it's valid.

Yet we have a "hindsight" advantage: In this particular case is that we have book series by McLaren, starting with A New Kind of Christian, and also his other writings, associations, and activism.

Deconstruction is a prime tool in religious writing today, and is very Post-modern. Essentially I would say that within Christianity, Deconstruction is a the 'playing up' of conflict, ambiguity, and exception in Church traditions and in Scripture in order to (in our lingo) defy or redefine Authority by means of a hyper-Normative principle. In other words, if one can Deconstruct a practice or behavior, one has permission do whatever they choose. One might say that it is an exercise in generating "areas of opinion".

A case in point: In discussing homosexuality, one sees McLaren questioning why Paul chose a certain Greek word over another, playing up the ambiguity, while essentially ignoring consensus, tradition, and morality. He doesn't even pretend to take an objective look (which should be a warning sign to us) -- rather, McLaren picks what he perceives to be a weak link and plays it up.

Many picked up A New Kind of Christian back in 1997, found it helpful, judged it to be truth (or contain truth). But now we have nearly a decade of building upon that foundation -- a great advantage for us looking back, for we can fairly evaluate where the ideas of A New Kind of Christian were headed. And looking back with the benefit of learning from nearly a decade's worth of history serious questions have arisen --

What is Christian Post-modernism?
There is still not a clear answer or consensus -- one must now accept that is part of the 'nature of the beast'; there is no defining Post-modernism because definitions and clarity of ideas are Modern. And as long as Post-modernism is undefined, it remains immune to Deconstruction...

Can Christian Post-modernism take a moral stand?
In areas of human relationships, it seems that Post-modernism is decidedly Humanistic in it's value system -- Feed the poor, and tolerate active homosexuals, for human dignity, privacy, and choice are prime.

Hopefully that clarifies my take on Christian Post-modernism / Emergent Christianity...[/color]

[kanham]

Skip,

Now you are speaking to what concerns me too. I was going down that road to a degree until I finally understood and saw the danger. I still believe that there are good points made that need to be made but in attempting to claim they do not have a brick by brick foundation the movement ends up having no foundation at all. The springs idea that Rob Bell puts forth in Velvet Elvis is good but at times it would see he forgets that for a trampoline to function those springs must be hooked to something unmovable. They must securely fascine to a foundation that doesn't change.

If we can't stand on the orthodox claims of divinity and morality then we in fact are no longer worshiping the God of the universe. If we can't stick by our Makers definition of true love then we HAVE to be using another's definition.

[Jimbob]

:amen:

[Lee Freeman]

Skip and BOG,
Like the guy or don't.  I'm not trying to convince you one way or another.  Lee is apparantly finding McLaren's writing to be profitable.  I will go so far as to say that McLaren's writing and perspectives have helped to restore, refresh, reinvigorate, and save my faith.  His Christlike humility challenges me personally.  Do I agree with everything he says/writes?  Of course not.  However, I will follow Brian McLaren as he follows Christ any day.
AE

Yeah, I'm willing to read McClaren for myself, rather than merely reading short soundbites about him, then make up my own mind. When I'm done I may ultimately agree with all, or only  some, of what he says. But I have to say that so far, he has said some some thought-provoking and challenging things.

Pax.

So far as I know, not a single poster has made any assertions about McLaren based solely upon things written about him.
I see that posters have read McLaren, found McLaren's own words on the internet, and either linked or posted his words.

Therefore, it appears that you are either confusing this thread with some other one you're posting to on some other board, or you're engaging in marginalizing other posters based upon your own preconceptions and misconceptions.

Perhaps your rush to embrace McLaren is simply an extension of your own acceptance of Christian syncretism (under the guise of ecumenism), and realizing that in your worldview it's no great stretch to accept the fusion of Christianity and any other religious system.

I'm not ever going to be part of some Eucumenical Movement.  :;):


Do you realize how stupid eucumenicalism looks to those who are not part of it?  You have all of these different Christian denominations with contradicting doctrines, plans of salvation, ect. all the while trying to pretend that such is not the case.  Add on the fact that some are trying to get the Muslims, the Buddhists, and Hindus in it too makes it come off as an even bigger joke.

BH has thrown his platinum, and he hopes not at platypuses.

BH, what Thomas and Alexander Campbell thought was that most Protestant Christian groups had more in common than not. Their differences were over doctrines "of which the kingdom of heaven does not consist," to use Thomas' phrase.

Think about it. All orthodox Protestant sects believe in the Trinity, salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ; most of them teach some form of baptism, and they all observe communion, though not all with the same frequency; they all believe the Bible is the inspired word of God and normative for the church; they all believe the ten commandments, they all have the same moral views, etc. Why can't these various groups come together based upon the beliefs they hold in common? This is not to ignore the very real differences they have, but not making those distinctives into barriers anymore. Baptists, for example, are not asked to give up any beliefs they hold, just not to attempt to bind beliefs that others do not hold on them. Churches of Christ can still sing acapella, we simply don't demand that everyone else sing acapella. Charismatic churches can still speak in tongues, they simply don't insist that other believers must speak in tongues.

Of course there are some people who don't think this approach will work, but I've personally witnessed it in action.

Pax.[/color]

[ellisadam]

Ok, I wasn't going to say anything else, but it's getting really frustrating, so I'm back in.  Many of you are simply misrepresenting Emergent/the Emerging Church.  I really don't think you are doing it intentionally, but you are doing it nonetheless.  I have read almost everything written by "Emergent" and have read most of what's critical of it.  I have personally discussed many of these issues with several leaders in the emerging church, including the National Coordinator of Emergent, Tony Jones and also Doug Pagitt.  I'm not dropping names here, I'm just saying that I'm not just speculating or judging simply based on what I've read on the internet.  So, I'm going to offer a couple of observations for whatever they are worth.
a)  I can find absolutly noone who is advocating "postmodern Christianity".  There may be someone, but I haven't found them.  What is being advocated is that some of us engage a changing culture.  What is being suggested is that maybe we don't have to convert people to modernity before we can convert them to Christianity (you know, since there were Christians before the advent of Modernity).  What some of us are wondering is if modernity (which is arguably more humanistic than postmodernity) maybe wasn't the best thing that ever happened to Christianity.
b)  What is being suggested in the emerging church is that while it was quite appropriate for Christianity to engage modernity and take that philosophy "captive for Christ", we make have made a mistake by totally embracing modernity to the point that many feel Christianity is utterly dependent on it.  What I hear being constantly cautioned against in the emerging church is that while can and should take postmodernity "captive for Christ", and while we should and must listen to postmodernity's critique of modernity to untangle it from Christianity, we must NOT make the same mistake that the church made with Modernity.
c)   Leaders in the emerging church are quite clear that they are not calling on everyone to abandon existing church structures.  They are simply asking for support, or at the very least that traditional/modern Christians would focus their energy on reaching the significant part of the population that a modern version of the Gospel can connect with instead of tearing into those of us who are trying to find another way to express the truth in a radically changing culture.
d)  The accusation that the emerging church is presenting an "I'm OK, You're OK" Gospel or that they have an "everybody's in (universalist) ecclesiology is simply false.  What is being questioned is the practice of "motivation by exclusion" that most churches practice.  What many of us are wondering is if belonging to a faith community might actually lead to believing more effectively than doing it the other way around (and may actually be more Biblical).  Read McLaren's new book "The Secret Message of Jesus" when it comes out in April (or just read my reviews of it for the quotes).  He will surprise a great many of his critics on this point.
e)  Postmoernism, as a philosophy/epistemology is still in its embrionic stage.  So far it simply points out the flaws of modernism (deconstruction) and is just beginning to reconstruct an alternative.  It can't be defined yet because it is still in the very early stages of it's development which may/will take hundreds of years.  Even so, many of it's criticisms of modernity are valid and should be headed.  Thank God some are willing to actually consider what this shift means for the Church and for the Gospel rather than hiding their heads in the sand and hoping it will go away.  (It is quite possible that our overcommittment to modernity stems from the fact that the church vacilated between ignoring it and declaring it "evil" and "foreign to the gospel" for years until they realized this was not the case and doing a pendulum swing.)

I need to get back to some other things, but I'm sure I'll be back with more observations later.
AE

[kanham]

Ellisadam,

What is being suggested is that maybe we don't have to convert people to modernity before we can convert them to Christianity

What does that mean? How does that play out? Any examples?

What is being questioned is the practice of "motivation by exclusion" that most churches practice.

What does this mean? What is motivation by exclusion? Can you explain that? How do you define most churches? Are you specifically talking about the Church of Christ?

What many of us are wondering is if belonging to a faith community might actually lead to believing more effectively than doing it the other way around

What is the other way around? Where does the other way around happen and how?

My only issue, not knowing if this is directed at me in anyway, is that it is easy to attack the incumbents making claims about how it will be better but no way to find out if that is really true for 50 years so maybe we better go slow since what is being demanded isn't even defined.

I have read many books and I have been to emergent churches or at least churches that claim to be emergent. I have read their material and talked people who go there. If I thought that these experiences were making people who were more faithful then I would be pushing full force. I have not interviewed or seen anything close to that. They claim to be emergent and they claim to have read the books you talk about too.

I am not trying to be combative but I need more information. I would love for someone to give me more clarity on this discussion because I simply have not been impressed to date.  Sorry, all I have is what I have observed.

[Lee Freeman]

It's easy to be critical of something we don't understand or know a lot about. I haven't read enough material by and about the Emergent Church yet to know what I think of it. But as I've said, McClaren has given me some things to think about.

See the "Emergent Church" thread in theology for a discussion of the Emergent Church. Adam should weigh in on that one since he has more knowledge of this movement than we do.

Pax.

[marc]

Bought it today.  Just started on the intro.

It's nice to be able to read again, not that I have my "progressive lenses".

[marc]

This book was absolutely fantastic.  It put into words things I've pondered about what Jesus was really saying and what he was trying to create on Earth. 

I would advise people to put any fears you have about the emerging chruch movement aside and consider what he has to say.  This book goes in a completely different direction than the arguments on this thread went.

Again, fantastic.  One of the best books I've read in quite a while. And McLarens message is one that those of us raised in the Church of Christ should be more open to than many others, since we haven't, at least in my experience, considered the kingdom to be something that happens after we die.

[James Rondon]

Dr. Os Guinness on Brian McLaren and the "Emergent Church": Click here

[marc]

Two minutes of that was enough.

Any indication he's read the new book?  Didn't sound from the beginning as if he had. If it were an article, I'd read it, but I'm not going to subject myself to listening to a half hour of that.

I'd recommend just reading the book and see if you like it or not yourself instead of letting someone else form an opinion for you. 

[James Rondon]

Two minutes of that was enough.

Any indication he's read the new book?  Didn't sound from the beginning as if he had. If it were an article, I'd read it, but I'm not going to subject myself to listening to a half hour of that.

I'd recommend just reading the book and see if you like it or not yourself instead of letting someone else form an opinion for you. 

Actually, it's less than fifteen minutes long. If you only listened to a few minutes of it, you missed some of the really troubling stuff, especially regarding McLaren's view of sin. Even so, just so you know, I have not formed a concrete opinion on McLaren and his movement yet. I posted this because it was timely (it was just on the Way of the Master Radio a few days ago). When I do form a more concrete opinion, it will not be because someone else has formed it for me. I have read much on McLaren and the "Emergent Church", as well as "Post Modern Christianity", and have heard and read quite a bit from McLaren and others who support his thinking...

[Jimbob]

One thing you'll find as you dig deeper is that he doesn't have "a movement".  Additionally, you'll find that many "emergents" who highly respect McLaren don't even consider him to be "emergent". 

edit--> And one more thing, I keep hearing fear-mongering from conservative evangelicals about the (capital E, capital C) "Emerging Church" like it's a new denomination.  When you hear that kind of talk, realize that it's the first proof they ain't got a clue what they're talking about.

[marc]

It reminds me a lot of screeds I hear against the "Community Church Movement" from other quarters.

[Bon Voyage]

I said this before in the Velvet Elvis thread, but if Rob Bell Jr was spreading such dangerous and unbiblical teachings, I doubt others that I have met during my time as a PK would be fellowshipping him.

[marc]

One reason I reacted so strongly to the beginning of this is that I had just visited several sites, including the Amazon page for the book, and read comments accusing McLaren of everything from Universalism to the Lindburgh kidnapping, many by people who had admitted not having read the material they were critiquing.  This new book has very little to do with these comments.  It stands on its own as something worth considering.

I delivered the sermon at church this morning, something I do rarely (third time this year).  I used the thoughts I had just read as a jumping off point and talked about The Kingdom of Heaven. 

I didn't do the subject justice, but I did use many of McLaren's thoughts, and they seemed to resonate with people based on the comments.  Also, something happened with me that had never happened before when I was speaking.  I had trouble finishing some of the things I was saying because this meant so much to me that I was choking up and fighting back tears.  I'm not a crier at all, and this surprised me.  But this book touches so much on what it really means to be a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven that I feel that I've been able to see things I've searched for all of my life come into focus a little more.

Also, as I was looking at the audience, I thought about how what I had read was real in the lives of many of the people who were listening. 

I know that no everyone will react to the book in this way, but for me, the book offered some comfort, some affirmation that the struggle was worthwhile, and a great deal of encouragement to try to live more and more in a way that would advance the Kingdom.

[ellisadam]

Marc,
My reactions to McLaren are much the same as yours (and particularly this book).  His work in had no small part in saving and reinvigorating my faith.  I met him a couple of weeks ago.  What a humble and genuine guy!  What a pastoral spirit! 

I recently posted a couple of talks by McLaren from a small retreat I attended.  He even did a Q & A session that deals with several things addressed in the "Way of the Master" radio address.    Actually it directly refutes and disproves several things they accused him of.  Here's the link.  Judge for yourself:

http://ellisadam.podomatic.com/entry/2006-04-24T06_14_00-07_00

AE

[marc]

I am (I think--the meds still haven't worn off).  Thanks.