The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Emerging Church

Asking questions is not equivalent to genuine thought, most especially when the asking is meant to destroy any possibility of real answers.

Kalled-
Now that you've clarified this question I can respond.
The problem is that Mclaren is not refuting the idea that others of different faiths come to salvation, he's doing just the opposite - he's promoting it. Don't you see a problem here?? He is just making people even more confused (and that's exactly what a false teacher does). He's NOT bringing people closer to the truth, he's keeping them farther away from it. That's why he is dangerous. He's sneaks in universalism, denial of what hell and heaven are, etc. right into the layperson's lap.
What he is doing is a deception and in some ways is worse than that of the cults. At least JWs and Mormons there is more of a "black and white" when it coming to their theology, but in McLaren's case he claims to believe in the basic tenets of the Christian faith and many think he's ok because of this and is thus a brother in Christ.
When I went in front of our elder board at our church , our Sr. Pastor tried to smooth this issue over and surprisingly asked all the elders to come to a consensus that McLaren is a brother in Christ. Needless to say, this (among other things said) made for a very disheartening meeting with the elders.

Kalled said:
Not ashamed huh?? Well then how come he can't come out and tell us what he really believes about homosexuality?? Why does he continue to dodge things?
You haven't read enough of Mclaren to see where he's really coming from. (not that I suggest you read any more of him).

I never said I agree with this, but there are probably many people in even the most orthodox of congregations who hold to that. And a lot of them probably will argue for their position in the same way that he does. We need to know the arguments so that we can refute them effectively, and reading what someone says about the arguments doesn't give you a real clear picture of what the argument is really saying.

First, this doesn't apply to Janean, who has read much of this stuff. Second, what we really need to know is the biblical position; the more we know it, the easier it is to defend against attacks. Third, I don't believe for one moment that you're reading McLaren so you can figure out how to effectively refute his arguments.

Again, I will publicly challenge you to substantiate your claim(s) that "orthodox churches/Christians" are guilty of such things as: failing to preach the whole counsel of God, have failed to preach the fullness of Christ's person and/or work, and now that many who are orthodox hold to the erroneous view that people of other faiths can be saved. WHERE are you getting this stuff? My guess is that you have read such tripe in McLaren's writings or from some other "Emerging Church" proponent. There is absolutely no truth to these charges whatsoever. Are you familiar with the Ninth Commandment? Exodus 20:16 (ASV) "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

Either produce evidence to prove your allegations or render a public apology to the saints of God, some of whom have even given their lives for the faith having refused to barter the truth of which you say they have cast off and/or failed to make known. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scold.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

So what sayeth the Horse’s Mouth? In A Generous Orthodoxy, McLaren states, “I am a Christian because I have a sustained and sustaining confidence in Jesus Christ.” However, McLaren goes further saying, there are “Seven Jesus” on pages 43-67:

Now, he sums up his “impressions” in a table on pages 64-65 and though he states it is incomplete it is worth noting (see attachment).

How does this heretic characterize “Calvinism?” He states, his view of Calvinism [referring to God moving pieces on a chess board], “folds much (not all) of today’s Calvinism into a broader way of thinking called “Determinism,” which says that ultimately our freedom is an illusion, and that we’re just puppets of one sort or the other” (page 186). Though in another place he seems kinder to Calvinism, his misunderstanding of Calvinism is apparent. McLaren sees himself as Reformed, because he claims he is always reforming.

Do we really need more to evaluate him? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />

Doesn't this imply that those outside of the Reformed camp are going to hell? I don't deny the orthodoxy of these authors or anything like that, but I believe there to be truth found outside of Calvinism within Christianity. Afterall, Scripture doesn't call us to be Calvinists.

No, it doesn't imply that all those outside of the Reformed/Calvinist camp are going to hell, although I do believe that the majority of professing Christians today are hell-bound due to the fact that they have embraced a false Gospel and are still dead in their sins.

My comments were made specifically in regard to the "Emerging Church" camp and not to anyone else.

Why don't you respond to my other more detailed reply where I answered your several questions and in return asked a few of you? See here: My extended reply.

In His grace,

I admit here to choosing a bad word in my statement. I believe I meant "church goers" rather than "Christians". The point still stands, though, I think. There are people in the most orthodox of churches I am sure who don't believe "right".


I never implied that McLaren had discovered something "new which others have not understood, preached, and taught". I just thought his chapter about the "7 Jesuses" was interesting. Maybe he didn't pick the best words to make his point, but, I think, if one looks at the church as it is today, different groups put their primary focus on only part of Jesus' life and ministry. This isn't to say that the historic church has failed to focus on these different areas. I never said that they had and never implied that. I just think that what McLaren has to say in that chapter of A Generous Orthodoxy is very good. Here is a quote:



How many orthodox writers are writing things on the level of the common man or the common college student or the common anyone? I find those kind of writings hard to come by these days. In light of that, it's turning people away from the gospel because they can't understand what's being said amidst all the theological terms and such. I'm not saying that we stop using biblical language, but, we can present biblical language to the people in the language of the people. There is nothing wrong with this. We have the Bible in English that people can actually understand don't we? Why does sharing the gospel and the deep things of God have to be any different?


But, also, nowhere in Scripture does it say to use the same methods of sharing the gospel with all people. Yes, it says to preach the gospel, but we can preach to different groups in different ways. This is what Jesus did. He didn't always preach sermons. Sometimes he told stories, sometimes he had conversations. Paul was the same way. Sometimes he preached and sometimes he reasoned in the temple. And in both cases, they used the language of the people. They didn't always come condemning. Sometimes they came serving and loving and reasoning and conversing. And, they used different words to convey the same truth to different people.


I never said or implied that what orthodox writers are reinforcing was wrong. They are reinforcing right ideas. And they do a wonderful job of challenging falsehood. But they leave no room for thinking about why we believe what we believe. The orthodox things that I've read are all about how their view is right and you should believe their way or your wrong. There isn't any room for a difference of opinion. It makes one feel very condemned if they think differently, and, I really don't think that is what Jesus set out to do when He came to this earth, and, I don't know that it's what we should do either. We can reinforce right beliefs by allowing people to ask questions about them. McLaren and others challenge and allow people to ask questions. I think we should do the same.

Kalled2Preach you made the statement, “How many orthodox writers are writing things on the level of the common man or the common college student or the common anyone?” Apparently, McLaren is not communicating too well, if you believe he is putting forth a true Christ? We need to ask ourselves what kind of Christian McLaren’s 7 Jesus’ produce? McLaren gives us his answer in A New Kind of Christian.

The book follows McLaren’s fictional character, Neo. McLaren develops Neo’s view of Christianity in the book. So what does this new kind of Christian look like?

Neo resolutely holds to a doctrine of Evolution, and rejects any literal interpretation of Genesis. Neo says, "For me, Carol, we can't be faithful to God unless we're faithful to the facts, faithful to the data, if you will. And so instead of hiding from evolution, I think we'd be more faithful to God to look it right in the eye and learn from it" (p. 98). Neo also calls evolution "one of God's best creations" (p. 184). Moreover, Neo embraces a strict view of human freedom. He rejects any form of real sovereignty or predestination. According to him, "God really is much more a companion, a conversation partner with the people, guiding them, but not manipulating them, not robbing them of that gift of freedom" (p. 83). When discussing death Neo contrasts being controlled with being free (p. 150).

Of course, then we can look at McLaren’s book, The Last Word and the Word After That, and note what this new Christian believes concerning “hell.” McLaren asks, if Jesus uses the language of hell, we have to ask, ‘for what purpose does he use the language? What’s his point in working with the construction?’ (p. 71). Essentially, he can make use of it as a metaphor or model for God’s judgment on the oppressors without necessarily endorsing it as a ‘literal’ account of what happens to people when they die. This is an example of ‘rhetorical hermeneutics’ – ‘an approach to Scripture that among other things tells us that we normally pay too much attention to what the writers are saying and not enough to what they’re doing’ (p. 81). As the intersexual poet Pat says of hell: ‘Its purpose, not its substance, is the point’ (p. 26). McLaren sums up his position in his own words saying,

So this is the new kind of Christian McLaren is seeking to make? McLaren endorses heresy and those that endorse him are heretics that have or are departing from the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3)! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/flee.gif" alt="" />

The Holy Spirit when He sovereignly regenerates a person according to God's elective purpose gives His people a mind and heart for truth. If as you claim, individuals cannot see certain basic elementary truths without this new modernism, which is just old heresy, then one must wonder if they have ever been regenerated!

PS: there are a good number of Reformed books on every area of ministry imaginable. I am not sure where you have gathered your sources saying there are no books easy enough to read for today's modern reader, but Barna Research claims,

The majority of Christian books are written on the 6th-8th grade reading level. So I find it very curious when you state,

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />

As I follow this thread, there seems to be a divergence in the meaning fo "emerging church movement" and "emergent church movement, which has created a bit of confusion. Wouldn't you say there was an "emerging church" movement prior to the Reformation? I am thinking of, for instance, John Wycliffe, and John Huss, both of whom preceded Luther by a century or two. Certainly, there must have been an "underground church", perhaps similar to what we have in China etc. Would you not class them as "emerging churches, which was brought to a head with the 95 thesis nailed to the Wittenburg door?

Yes, Gnarley, you are correct that both "emerging" and "emergent" church are ambiguous terms and could be correctly applied to many church ages. In fact, D.A. Carson recently wrote a book titled Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church and in the forward (I believe, although it might be in his blog) he mentions that when he first began using the term "emerging church" people though he was talking about the first-century church.

Currently the terms are applied to a relatively recent phenomenon in Christianity that is post-modern and post-evangelical, although as you have already learned in this thread and elsewhere, it is frustratingly hard to define since in the Emergent Church each man does what is right in his own eyes.

Relztrah