I’m sure Brian McLaren is a very nice man. I just hate his theology. I don’t mean hate like, “I hate it when I leave something in the car at the post office and when I come back in the line’s twice as long,” kind of way. I have this internal, full-spirit aversion to his interpretation of the Word. I don’t know how else to describe it. Every time I read something he wrote my blood pressure and heart rate go up and I start muttering.

Anyway, Adam at pomomusings is having a little guest-blogger extravaganza in which each participant tries to define or describe the Kingdom of God. It’s a pretty good series so far. I don’t agree with much that I’ve read there, but it’s interesting and worth a read.

McLaren recently posted and the short-short version is that he believes the Gospel and the Kingdom are all about the here and now. Here’s his opening:

The good news of the Kingdom of God is, according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Gospel. John would agree - although he translates the phrase “kingdom of God” to “life of the ages” or “life to the full.” (The common English translation of “zoien aionian” as “eternal life” is misleading.) A surprisingly large number of committed Christians still assume “kingdom of God” and “life of the ages” mean “life in heaven after you die.” This misbelief is one of the most tragic turns in the history of Christian theology, in my opinion.

(continue reading…)

I really do. I don’t like Emergent theology. At first I thought it was a good idea…Our world is changing, so we need to be prepared to address it in a different way. But once I started to understand the difference between Emergent and emerging, and saw the basics of Emergent theology, I’ve disagreed. But I refuse to disagree with something when I don’t understand it. So I read papers, blogs, and books written by Emergent leaders and those who consider themselves part of the “emergent conversation”.

I think I’m pretty informed on the subject, so I don’t shy away when I talk about it. I do, however, try my best to be cordial and polite, and avoid stereotypes, assumptions, and generalizations. I try to cite specific people and organizations when I talk about their theological position, and avoid blanket statements. But I’m not perfect. And I don’t mince words. (continue reading…)

The last couple of weeks have been good for me, as far as reading goes. I typically have a list of 12-14 books that I’m reading simultaneously, and I have the worst habit of starting new ones with no regard for when I’ll be able to finish them. Well, as I mentioned before I finished both The Truth War and The Dark River on vacation last week, and since I got home I’ve finished Donald Bloesch’s A Theology of Word & Spirit. I’ve mentioned a couple of insights before, here.

I loved the approach to the intersection of theological and philosophical ideals:

One of the salient needs in academic theology today is to combat the ideal of an undogmatic theology, a theology free from the constraint of biblical or confessional norms. Currently the emphasis is not on the truth of the gospel but on the wonder of the gospel or on the experience of the gospel. It is not the normativeness of the Christian faith but the edification of the human psyche or the broadening of the human imagination that commands our attention.

In light of Doug Pagitt’s recent comments about yoga on CNN: “The Jesus agenda is a whole life, is a complete life, is a healed life. So when people use it to relieve stress, to be healthy in their relationships, to feel good in their body, that’s a really good thing.” The concern is feeling better. John MacArthur points out that when people do this they’re turning inward for a “complete”, “healed life”, rather than to Christ. (continue reading…)

After reading Is the D.Min a “fluff degree? at Pomomusings, I started to rethink my grad school choices a little. I want to have my options open for a Th.D, if I decide to go that route, but I don’t want to “waste” my time (I use quotes because study is never wasted time) on a degree that won’t make me a better minister.

My friend Jason is finishing his M.Div and I know he’s been challenged and has had to work hard on his theological understanding. But he says that his classmates aren’t necessarily following suit. And the school isn’t encouraging them to. Neither of us can understand why.

The majority of the study is on pastoral care issues, church growth, and program trends. But praxis changes. That whole portion of study could be useless in two or three years. But theology is timeless.

Sure, our understandings change from time to time, and we have to be able to articulate and apply our theology in rapidly changing contexts. But Christ doesn’t change. God doesn’t change. Our church leaders need to be grounded in the constant, unchanging things…houses built on the rock. (continue reading…)

This time at the Convergent conference. Via bob.blog:

He uses the word “heresy” in and around the discussion, and while he doesn’t apply it directly to the forehead of either Brian, Doug or Rob, he doesn’t leave a whole lot of doubt as to what category he places these guys in mentally…

I agree with most of Bob’s analysis here. I used to enjoy his preaching, but eventually found him to be something of a one-trick-pony. I grew tired of his abrasive style six or eight months ago. About a year ago I was listening to both Driscoll and Bell (after my late discovery of Nooma), but my iTunes stopped updating them long ago because I wasn’t listening (I am still listening to Matt Chandler, though). I quit listening to Bell after six or seven weeks when I realized his preaching wasn’t breathing any Spirit-life into me. Driscoll’s was, but it was sucking it all back with sarcasm and condescension.

Adam has some other things to say about the lecture.

For those of you who don’t want to listen to the entire 80+ minute lecture, here are some ridiculous snippets from it:

• I don’t mind a conversation…but when God speaks, we are not to converse, we are to obey.
• Brian McLaren was asked this question: “What is your position on gay marriage?” His answer was this: “You know what? The thing that breaks my heart is that there is no way I can answer it without hurting someone on either side.” To which I would respond: “Now you have hurt God.”
• The Southern Baptist Convention of North Carolina is bringing him [Doug Pagitt] to teach in October. Shame on you.
• If Rabbis don’t love Jesus, they have a bad hermeneutic.
• The Bible is all about Jesus. Ultimately, it’s all…about…Jesus.
• Brian McLaren also has a new organization called “Deep Shift” and I think somebody inadvertently put an “F” in there.
• I believe Emergent is, like Judas, in the process of hanging itself.
• And all the nonsense of emerging, and Emergent, and new monastic communities, and, you know, all of these various kinds of ridiculous conversations; I’ll tell you as one on the inside, they don’t have converts. The silly little myth, the naked emperor is this: they will tell you it’s all about being in culture to reach lost people, and they’re not.

I agree that points 1, 2, 6, and 7 are pretty “ridiculous“. But I’d like to point out a few things.

First, while I have no idea (since I’m lacking context and I can’t read Mark’s mind) where he was going with the “now you’ve hurt God” comment, McLaren’s response to the question was an act of cowardice. If you want to be a spokesperson for the Truth, you have to be willing to speak it, understanding that someone’s going to feel hurt. You don’t have to worry though, because if you’re really speaking the Truth, and that person is really hearing it, a soul will be saved. But it’s impossible to speak the truth if the thing that breaks your heart is that someone will be hurt by it. The thing that breaks my heart is that Christians are willing to compromise so much to be considered forward thinkers.

If you’ve read my review of Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches, you know how I feel about Doug Pagitt. He is a skeptic in the purest sense of the word. He offers no constructive position theologically, but only casts doubts on others beliefs. His biggest critique of Driscoll seems to be that his theology hasn’t changed in ten whole years (I wish I could pull quotes but a friend borrowed my book and moved to Kansas). He criticizes Dan Kimball’s (or John Burke’s, I can’t remember) image of a ship in a storm anchored by Christ. It may move, but it stays rooted in the truth. Pagitt criticizes it by suggesting that the ship should be moving from port to port, not staying still. I don’t think they should invite him to teach, because it seems that he’ll simply teach them to doubt traditional doctrines and be willing to fold on the major issues of the faith.

Why is it ridiculous to say that a rabbi that doesn’t love Jesus has a bad hermeneutic? I guess it links to the declaration that the Bible is all about Jesus. Everything in the Old Testament that follows Abram’s call is about the fulfillment of the promise. How is that promise fulfilled? In Christ.

As for the last statement, I’ve been wondering about this lately. Missional Reformed churches seem to be reaching so many more people for Christ than “pomo” and Emergent movement churches that the trumpet call from Emergent Village and others like them is beginning to ring hollow. It seems that most, if not all, liberal/progressive/emergent theologians are the “disgruntled children of evangelicalism” (see here, here, and here). Are they reaching the lost? It would seem that for all their talk, their best bet in reaching lost souls would be in Seattle, where Driscoll is booming with over 6,000 members (claiming 40% as converts), and Karen Ward’s Church of the Apostles has around 80.

You’ll also find that a lot of Driscoll’s critics “are just as smug and sure as he is”, while they decry his rigid theology and arrogant manner. While Mark is clearly stretching the upper age limits of adolescence, he is seeing emergent theology quite clearly.

« Previous Page — Next Page »