Yesterday morning in church we sang a song I knew from the album “Songs For The Cross Centered Life” but had never had the privilege of singing during a worship service. The song was “I Come By The Blood” by Steve and Vikki Cook. It is quite a recent song, but one whose expression of theology is easily equal to many of the old hymns. It proves, as do many of the songs recorded on the albums released by Sovereign Grace Music, that modern music can be as full of meaning and depth as songs that were written long before. Here are the lyrics:
You are the perfect and righteous God whose presence bears no sin
You bid me come to Your Holy place, how can I enter in
When Your presence bears no sin
Through Him who poured out His life for me, the atoning Lamb of God
Through Him and His work alone, I boldly come
The chorus has some wonderful lyrics, but all I heard or understood was this:
Bold bold bold bold bold, bold bold bold bold bold
Bold bold bold bold bold bold bold bold bold bold
Bold bold bold bold bold bold bold bold bold bold
Bold bold bold bold bold bold bold bold bold bold bold bold
Bold bold bold.
To be honest, I heard little of the rest of the song. I was just overwhelmed by that one word: bold. I was moved almost to tears. No, let’s be honest. I was moved to tears by that simple word. I stopped singing and just thanked and praised God for the boldness He gives. I stopped and thanked Jesus for the boldness He won for me through His sacrifice. It was a blessed moment.
I think the significance of the moment was brought about, at least in part, by what I experienced the previous evening. Brian McLaren had been in town the night before. Having read many of his books and having invested a fair amount of time in studying what he teaches, both as a Christian author and as an apparently reluctant leader in this strange movement conversation known as emergent, I thought it would be both interesting and useful to hear him speak. The event was held in Richview Baptist Church and the setting was informal. McLaren sat in the front of the auditorium with the audience arrayed around him, grouped around small tables. It was a small gathering of probably only forty or fifty people which made it a good setting to ask questions and to hear from McLaren in a reasonably “safe” environment. I asked no questions, choosing instead just to listen.
McLaren, as we have come to expect, never really answered a question. At one point one of the men in attendance, who clearly had a great deal of respect for McLaren, asked him whether this was natural or whether it was deliberate and something he had had to work at to perfect. McLaren, in as lucid an answer as we got all night, responded that it is something he does deliberatly. I have no doubt that this is the case, but unfortunately, I found it exceedingly frustrating, though certainly not surprising. One might expect that, when attending a Question and Answer session, one might hear some answers. But this was not, unfortunately, the case. Instead, we were subjected to long, rambling discourses that seemed to do anything but address the actual question.
Of course while McLaren was not always lucid in answering questions, in a sense he answered questions simply by not answering. He made statements throughout. In fact, he made a statement by not bringing a Bible with him to the event. And really there did not appear to be any Bibles at the event (and, conspicuous by its absense, was any type of prayer). When asked questions, there was only one occasion where McLaren referred to Scripture as the foundation for his answer, and even then he took a verse far out of context (in an attempt to show that God is, essentially, unknowable). I do not recall a single time that he answered a question by recommending a verse or passage of Scripture. While he widely quoted or recommended the works of other authors and mystics, he did not seem to show any real knowledge of the Bible or trust in and affection for Scripture. For an evening led by a man who is considered one of the world’s most important and influential evangelical leaders, it was certainly surprising that Scripture played no role.
Throughout the evening, boldness was absent. The faith of the emergents, the postmodern faith, is a faith that is devoid of boldness before God. It is timid, angry, tentative, questioning. It is not a faith of assurance and boldness. It emphasizes the unknowability of God more than what God has revealed to us about Himself. The faith McLaren commends is a faith that always questions, always doubts. It seems that the only faith McLaren hates is the faith of a person who knows what he believes and is convicted by Scripture and by plain reason that what God has revealed is truth—true truth. As others have observed, the real enemy of the Emerging Church is conservative, biblical Protestantism. McLaren will commend anything or anybody, it seems, except those who have a faith built upon the truths revealed in the New Testament epistles.
I think that last sentence is important. It struck me while driving home from church yesterday afternoon. McLaren mentioned at one point how many times he has studied and read the gospels since he professed Christ many years ago. But when he spoke of the book of Romans, he did so without the same reverence. When I examined the evening and pieced it together with what McLaren has revealed of himself in his books I was led to conclude something that startled me. Brian McLaren loves the red letters of the Bible, but hates the black. The red letters so easily support the type of Christianity he is attempting to build and promote, but the black interfere. He can reconcile Jesus with his faith, but he is stopped short by Paul. Brian McLaren loves Jesus, but does he love God in the same way?
This postmodern faith, a faith that seeks to emulate Jesus but without the explanation and application taught by Paul and the other apostles, has no certainty, no boldness. This was brewing in my mind as I reflected on the evening. It was brewing in my mind as I drove to church on Sunday morning. And it brought tears to my eyes on Sunday morning as I worshipped and thanked God for the boldness He provides and makes available to those within whom He has done His work.
“…Jesus Christ our Lord, in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in Him.” (Ephesians 3:12)
Jesus Christ gives boldness to His people. It is not a rash and arrogant boldness that takes refuge in our own intellectual capacities, but a boldness that what God reveals of Himself through Scripture is real and right and true and knowable. It is a confidence that we, simple human beings, can know and understand God. This is what Paul celebrates in the final verses of Romans 11. Having spent 11 chapters discussing the greatness of God, he bursts forth in a song of praise for all that God has revealed of Himself. “Oh the depths of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” This is an expression of wonder for all God has chosen to reveal about Himself to mere sinful, hate-filled human beings. It is an expression not of timidity but of boldness! Not of tenativeness, but of confidence!
We can share in this expression of praise, and so should we, for knowledge of God is a gift of God. Confidence is our privilege, boldness our birthright. We can know God and we can have confidence in what we know, as long as it accords with the words of Scripture—not merely the red words, but the black words too.
Comments (120) »
1. matthew
April 10, 2006
8:36 AM
Tim-
your post suggests that you accept the premise that there is a difference between the “red” and “black letters.” (Not a difference in terms of inspiration, but a difference in terms of teaching or emphasis or whatever). Is there nothing in the teaching of Jesus that would show the wrongness of McLaren et al? Is the “application taught by Paul” all that different from the gospels?
2. Tim Challies
April 10, 2006
8:37 AM
Matthew - I don’t think my post suggests that I feel there is a difference between the red and black. Rather, I seek to show, however poorly, that this is what McLaren seems to teach or to believe. I believe that the black letters are in every way equal to the red!
3. Ken
April 10, 2006
8:45 AM
I think I would rather say that McLaren loves narratives but hates propositions. The trouble is, God doesn’t give us the option. Both the Gospels and the Epistles are written by the same God. To say that one genre is better than another is to make a serious accusation against the Scriptures. They aren’t all the product of God. The old “Jesus’ sayings are better than Paul’s” is an old heresy that will never go away.
The Gospels are more loved by McLaren et. al. I think, because they see in them the type of “conversation” that they are trying to maintain. What they fail to see is that Jesus is just as dogmatic and doctrinaire as Paul is. Jesus spoke more about hell than anyone else in Scripture but we don’t hear much of that from the emergents. Jesus spoke much about His mission of death for sinners but we heard Saturday evening that our emphasis should be on “Kingdom” not “theories” of the atonement. I would like to hear McLaren talk about the fact that well over half of the Gospel accounts deal with one week in Jesus’ life- the last one, you know, the one that deals with His mission, His death - the atonement.
Perhaps McLaren does like the red more than the black, but it is a pretty selective choice and puts me in mind a little bit of Jesus Seminar type stuff.
4. Darryl
April 10, 2006
8:46 AM
Thanks for coming out, Tim.
I think you are right in one respect: McLaren’s greatest strength is in asking questions and stimulating thinking. I also appreciate your mention of prayer (that was supposed to happen) and Scripture (mine is on my Palm and we did have Bibles there).
During the day, Chris Seay spoke of the importance of confidence and boldness. He said, “I challenge you to speak with conviction.” McLaren also addressed the importance of confidence in God on Saturday as well.
I also share your concern that there seems to be a Paul vs. Christ thing happening, not necessarily with McLaren, but in general. To be fair, many evangelicals emphasize the teachings of Paul much more than the teachings of Jesus. They prefer Romans to the Gospels. I’m not sure why we have to choose.
I have to admit that I am quite taken aback by your statement, “Brian McLaren loves Jesus, but he hates God.” I’m reading it in context and it still seems to me to be a wreckless statement and that concerns me.
Your report certainly highlights the fact that two people can attend an event and walk away with different impressions! I disagree with McLaren on many things, but I walk away recognizing a man who respects Scripture and expresses a confident faith in God as revealed in His Word.
5. Carla
April 10, 2006
9:01 AM
Tim,
I was invited to this event by several people. I was unable to attend (obviously) and after reading your impression of it, I’m glad I wasn’t there.
I’m also glad that your Sunday morning worship washed the event in a better, Biblical light.
And Darryl, just for the record, while Tim’s language might seem “wreckless” to you, I can assure you he’s not the only one that has this impression of McLaren. There are many who see right through his intentional ambiguity to the empty, unbiblical “spirituality” he’s promoting & preaching.
He’s influential allright (did you know the president and CEO of World Vision Canada lists as his #1 book recommendation, McLaren’s A Generous Orthodoxy?), but not in the right ways.
6. Bill Kinnon
April 10, 2006
9:12 AM
Tim,
I, too, was at the event and am surpised that you can write what you write without raising your voice to ask McLaren any of your questions. (My 19 year old son had no compunction about asking McLaren about his position on the religious right as my son said, “these are our brothers and sisters” - which McLaren answered graciously.) Your statement that McLaren “loves Jesus, but hates God” is outrageous - and it would appear that you have changed that to “…but does he love God in the same way.” Tim, there is only room for one person on the Judgement seat of God as a good friend once reminded me, and it’s not you.
My fear is that you arrived at the event determined to prove your position on McLaren and nothing would change that opinion. (Please note that like Darryl, my wife had her bible on her Palm device.) You have looked for offence (no bibles, no prayer) and have taken the opportunity to be offended.
Would that you (and perhaps, I) operate with the same level of graciousness as Brian McLaren.
7. WraithofGod
April 10, 2006
9:45 AM
Long time lurker, first time poster.
Tim wrote: Brian McLaren loves the red letters of the Bible, but hates the black. The red letters so easily support the type of Christianity he is attempting to build and promote, but the black interfere.
I disagree. McLaren and many in his camp feign to love the “red letters,” but if one carefully examines Jesus’ teachings on the natural depravity of man (Mark 7:17-23) or his defense of the Creation ideal for exclusive monogamy between commited male/female (Matthew 19:1ff), for example, one finds the emergent camp ignoring or having an aversion for the REAL Yeshua HaMaschiach revealed in Scripture (hence their attack on Scripture’s faithfulness and credibility, their championing of moral relativity).
Rabbi Yeshua is embraced by nearly every religionist (theistic or nontheistic)….. they claim him as a good man, a prophet, a remarkable Jewish teacher, etc. Only true believers, however, defer to the *FULL* counsel of God (black and red letters, Tenach and NT, God of justice/holy wrath and God of peace/mercy). Modern and post-modern redactors prefer, anarchist-like, to “cut and paste” what portions of God’s supernatural propositional revelation they will accept. Pure autonomy borne from the Adamic bent heart.
8. MarieP
April 10, 2006
10:01 AM
Tim,
Wow! Thank you for this post. I too love the “I Come By the Blood” song, and I can definitely see why it struck you as it did after hearing McLaren. My pastor preached on Psalm 2 yesterday, and in the process he mentioned Revelation 21:8, which says that cowards will not inherit the Kingdom. Makes you want to distance yourself even more from the Emergent movement, doesn’t it?
9. Imbi Medri-Kinnon
April 10, 2006
10:24 AM
“Brian McLaren loves (Jesus the Christ) but hates (his follower,disciples, those who speak for him). The red letters, (Jesus the Christ) so easily support the type of Christ-ianity he is attempting to build and promote, but the black (his followers,disciples, those who speak for him) interfere.”
(Actually, that last clause is a truth for you, me and everybody else in the world :) ! )
IF you believe that every word in the Bible has equal weight for every context, do the females in your household wear head coverings when they are in church? Please, when will we understand that every one of us interprets words of scripture all the time?
I don’t know what I believe about lots that MacLaren grapples with, but he does challenge us to think.
Most of all, I was challenged by his graciousness, (He seems to have taken that right from the “red letters”). That graciousness that you see as lack of boldness, is the challenge that I took away from hearing him a couple of times this weekend.
10. hamo
April 10, 2006
10:32 AM
Carla you said “There are many who see right through his intentional ambiguity to the empty, unbiblical “spirituality” he’s promoting & preaching.”
Having read McClaren’s work I find this statement untrue and offensive.
I am equally sure there are many who see thru bigoted statements such as these.
11. david
April 10, 2006
10:40 AM
I have to admit that I am quite taken aback by your statement, “Brian McLaren loves Jesus, but he hates God.”
Tim didn’t say that. He said, “Brian McLaren loves the red letters of the Bible, but hates the black. The red letters so easily support the type of Christianity he is attempting to build and promote, but the black interfere. He can reconcile Jesus with his faith, but he is stopped short by Paul. Brian McLaren loves Jesus, but does he love God in the same way?”
12. bill streger
April 10, 2006
10:52 AM
Tim, I am definitely no fan of McClaren. At all, in any way shape or form. But I have to wonder why you didn’t use the opportunity to ask some of the questions that concern you, and instead waited to post about it here?
Honestly, there are very few opportunities like that, to have open access in a small group and ask questions - can you tell us why you passed on it?
Great thoughts on boldness, by the way. I am really falling in love with much of the SG music that’s out there.
13. Libbie
April 10, 2006
10:53 AM
I have to say McClaren doesn’t really challenge me to think. The difficulty I have with him is that he appears to want to encourage me to doubt.
It doesn’t seem that gracious to be sowing wishy-washy confusion in a world where people are adrift and in need of clarity. I think that’s rather unfair, actually.
14. Anne Ivy
April 10, 2006
10:57 AM
Right you are, David.
Darryl, you wrote: “I have to admit that I am quite taken aback by your statement, ‘Brian McLaren loves Jesus, but he hates God.’ I’m reading it in context and it still seems to me to be a reckless statement and that concerns me.”
Considering the fact (ooh…a FACT! Kill it! Beat it! Whack it with a stick!) Tim did not actually write “Brian McLaren loves Jesus, but he hates God” as you claim he did, there is clearly cause for concern about you, wouldn’t you agree?
15. Bill Kinnon
April 10, 2006
11:03 AM
Actually, Tim did write “…but hates God” and appears to have changed it. You just needed to be here a little earlier. And that is a fact.
16. Wendy
April 10, 2006
11:07 AM
Tim:
Thanks for the post. And for the reminder about boldness. Somehow many people have confused graciousness for tolerance or biblical error and absolutism or proprositional truth for bigotry and jugmentalism. We have lost the boldness we need to proclaim the Gospel of God through Jesus Christ’s redemption. McLaren elevates experience over Scripture and is leading many astray. Thanks again. Still Grateful for His Grace
17. Scott Zeller
April 10, 2006
11:08 AM
Anyone who doubts what Tim is saying here about how Mclaren ignores the rest of the NT in favor of extrapolating some principles from the gospels should read his latest book “The Secret Message of Jesus.” I just finished reading that one and in it Mclaren is good enough to share with us this secret message that Jesus shared in the gospels that has always eluded theologians who were too focused on the epistles and Reformation theology. Really pretty amazing. It’s hard to read that book and not wonder if Mclaren thinks a bit too highly of himself (we’ve missed it for 2000 years but he figured it out??).
I agree with the other commentors who said we have something to learn from Mclaren in his graciousness. I think that’s true and I think one thing Mclaren does well is he tries to explain himself more when he is criticized rather then lash back at his critics. However, the problem is that when he explains himself more it usually just makes things worse.
SEZ
18. bibliomaniac
April 10, 2006
11:16 AM
I find it perplexing that Darryl would stick words in Tim’s mouth, then go on to chastise Tim for something he never said.
As for Tim not asking any questions, actually, I think that’s in Tim’s favor. In no way did he attempt to change the outcome of the evening, but rather, to merely observe and to share with others his observations.
As for the lack of Bibles, the lack of ANY reference to Scripture by McLaren, and the lack of prayer, once again, I’m perplexed by those who are not bothered by this. The Christian life is one of a living, dynamic relationship with God (of which prayer is a VERY primary part), and one of letting the word of Christ richly dwell within you (Colossians 3:16). One’s love for God is most definitely manifest via prayer (or a lack of it) and interaction with the Word (or a lack of it).
The fact McLaren didn’t have a Bible and more importantly never even referenced Scripture at any point that evening is very telling, isn’t it? I’m not trying to be legalistic here, as I’m sure some will accuse me of. Rather, a key part of the Christian life is a passionate, zealous love for the Word.
Scripture says you will know a person by his or her fruit. Doesn’t sound like there was much fruit that evening in terms of interaction with God’s Word. I find this particularly interesting because one of the tenets of the EC is a desire to be conversant, including with nonbelievers. Any nonbelievers who were present that evening would have gotten no exposure to the intimacy a believer has with God (via prayer) and exposure to the Word as the answer to every human need.
19. Joel
April 10, 2006
11:16 AM
I think it interesting that, if McLaren loves the Gospels but disdains the rest of Scripture, he never seems to make the connection (at least in his public statements) that Jesus talked about Hell more than anyone else in the New Testament as Ken pointed out above. McLaren calls Hell “false advertising for God.”
Also, why are people finding fault with Tim for not asking any questions? If McLaren is going to dodge, bob and weave without answering questions clearly, why should Tim waste his energy? Perhaps if Brian would agree to a sodium pentothal injection before question/answer sessions, that might help.
Sadly, seeing how even Tim can be intentionally misquoted in this thread when his original post is there for all to see is amazing, yet par for the course. All of us have encountered this when trying to “converse” with EC adherents, along with silly questions about literality, interpretations and the like as shown by the remark above about “long hair.” You can understand a new believer asking questions like this because they are untaught. However, we now have “theologians” asking questions like this. With that kind of mindset, there is literally nothing that can’t be unpacked and deconstructed in true postmodern fashion. No wonder Scripture warns “let not many of you become teachers because as such you incur a stricter judgment.”
Libbie has it spot on. McLaren does not encourage one to think, but instead to doubt. A faith built on doubting God and His Word is no faith but a sham spirituality. What did the Apostle John say? “I write these things that you may KNOW…”
God is the same Triune God and the three persons of the Godhead are in total unity. You can’t hate the God of the Old Testament and then have warm fuzzies for Jesus. What’s next with this movement? Denial of the Trinity?
20. Anne Ivy
April 10, 2006
11:23 AM
Bill wrote: “Actually, Tim did write “…but hates God” and appears to have changed it. You just needed to be here a little earlier. And that is a fact.”
That’d explain the dichotomy, of course. ;^)
21. Bill Kinnon
April 10, 2006
11:25 AM
OK. One last time. Tim did say that “Brian McLaren loves Jesus, but he hates God” and subsequently changed it. I read it, as did Darryl, as did my wife, Imbi.
Tim needs to rejoin the conversation when he has a chance (I believe he’s at a presentation of a paper this morning) and confirm that neither Darryl, myself or Imbi are liars. In fact, he should have noted that he did change the phrasing from his more volatile statement.
22. Sam
April 10, 2006
11:41 AM
Tim,
Well written post. Way to Nail the heretical teaching on hitching post.
Look, Tim is probably one of the most well read people I have ever met. He is humble and gracious. He did his best in observing and posting what he saw. Tim’s questions probably wouldn’t have been answered. If you ask a fly what he likes about the scripture, it would probably answer “I like the way the surface of the Bible holds the sun’s heat for my little feet.”
Tim, I commend you for calling a spade a spade.
Even Satan can be laid back, humble in appearance and used some scripture to back himself up.
His,
Sam
23. Tim Challies
April 10, 2006
11:49 AM
This is actually Tim’s wife. Tim is at a meeting this morning, and asked me to keep an eye on this and, if it started getting out of hand, (which I don’ think it has at this point but…..) to let you know that he is unavailable at the moment, and will be back later today to comment.
I will leave the defense up to Tim, I will say however the “he said, no he didn’t say” argument that is brewing rather irrelevant. Tim did make the change in the article. He was concerned that it would become the focal point rather than the true issues, and it appears that it has.
I appreciate what Biblomanic and Wendy in particular have said as they sum up what I am thinking. I am struck by the fact people are using arguments such as “I brought my Bible! ” (or palm) to disprove Tim’s observations about the lack of Scripture used that night….. Yes, but did you use it????? Tim’s observations stems from the fact that he didn’t see the Bibles because they weren’t USED. What is the point of them being there if they were never opened?
I’m also struggling to understand how people are ignoring the fact that the man never directly answered any questions put forth, told everyone he was doing it on purpose and people are O.K. with that. We have to be equipped to defend what we believe, and he isn’t doing that by not answering direct questions. That is not graciousness, that is skirting the issues.
Anyway, this is far longer than I intended it to be, and I may get into trouble!!!
Blessings.
A.
24. bibliomaniac
April 10, 2006
11:56 AM
In a discussion that seems to be going off on a lot of tangents here, we should not lose sight of Tim’s main points. 1) Brian McLaren does not answer questions directly, if at all. 2) Brian did not pray, did not bring a Bible, and never quoted from Scripture.
So Tim revised his comment, and so some people who came happened to bring Bibles. Those are most definitely inconsequential to the two aforementioned points.
I’m rather doubtful that there’s any real compelling argument that it’s better for Christian leaders to 1) be evasive and not answer questions, and 2) not pray and not use the Word.
I don’t see that Tim is attacking Brian McLaren. If anything, he’s simply pulling back the curtain a bit more so we can see who McLaren really is.
25. Bruce Gerencser
April 10, 2006
11:58 AM
Quite honestly, the average Protestant or Baptist (for those who think they are not Protestant) would do well to pay a lot more attention to the gospels than they do. Perhaps McLaren leans too heavily on the gospels…….it may be a needed corrective in the current Church climate. In a day when the vast majority of Churches and pastors support the War in Iraq we need a healthy dose of the Sermon on the Mount.
As usual Carla judges McLaren’s character but then what can be expect from the keeper of the anti-emergnet flame?
Tim should have asked questions. Trying to hide behind objective silence won’t work. If it was an open forum then questions would be appropriate. Since ALL public speakers can be fuzzy or unclear at times, asking a question is a good way to clear up the matter.
I have listened to a number of McLaren sermons and q and a’s and I do not come away with the thought that he is trying to avoid things. I think he is focused on combating some particular ills he see in Christianity so he stays on point. McLaren is a careful speaker and writer.
What troubles me the most here……..is the notion of going to a public house of worship to hear a person speak and the purpose for being there is to critique the speaker rather than trying to take away something from the talk that will benefit your life?
Tim, did MCLaren say anything that was helpful to you? Anything that spoke to your heart?
I also hope you will clarify the “hate God” issue. Some commenters are being called “liars” in a nice Christian way ………
26. Annette Harrison
April 10, 2006
12:13 PM
Tim wrote:
“Brian McLaren loves the red letters of the Bible, but hates the black. The red letters so easily support the type of Christianity he is attempting to build and promote, but the black interfere. He can reconcile Jesus with his faith, but he is stopped short by Paul.”
This “type of Christianity” was written about by Martyn Lloyd-Jones when he wrote the following excerpt in his devotional, “Walking with God Day by Day.”
“The preaching of the cross of Christ was the very center of the message of the apostles, and there is nothing I know of that is more important than that everyone of us should realize that this is still the heart and the center of the Christian message. In order to emphasize that, let me put it negatively first. What is the message of the Christian Gospel and of the Christian Church? Now at the risk of being misunderstood I will put it like this: It is not primarily the TEACHING of our Lord. I say that, or course, because there are so many today who think that this is Christianity. They say, ‘What we need is Jesus’ teaching. He is the greatest religious genius of all times. He is above all philosophers. Let us have a look at His teaching, at the Sermon on the Mount and so on. That is what we want. ‘What the world needs today,’ they say, is a dose of the Sermon on the Mount—a dose of His ethical teaching …”
“But according to the apostle, Paul, this is not their first need. And I will go further. If you only preach the TEACHING of the Lord Jesus Christ, not only do you not solve the problem of mankind, but in a sense you AGGRAVATE it. You are preaching nothing but utter condemnation, because nobody can ever carry it out.”
“So they [the apostles] did not preach His TEACHING … It was not the teaching of Christ nor the EXAMPLE of Christ either. What they preached [boldly] was His death on the cross and the meaning of that event.”
27. DLE
April 10, 2006
12:21 PM
Good thoughts, Tim.
Certainty bugs postmoderns to death. To say that “I know that I know” is to speak another language to them. They tend to make Doubt the New Faith.
Everyone doubts. But no one should wallow in it perpetually.
28. 4ever4given
April 10, 2006
12:25 PM
What struck me in this post was Tim’s comment: “Jesus Christ gives boldness to His people. It is not a rash and arrogant boldness that takes refuge in our own intellectual capacities, but a boldness that what God reveals of Himself through Scripture is real and right and true and knowable. It is a confidence that we, simple human beings, can know and understand God.”
I am not saying that I hope everyone is diagnosed with cancer or MS so that they will understand what a precious thing it is… a privilege it is to proclaim boldly the truth of Christ without compromise…. The Lord ordained such a trial in my life to wake me up.
However, even growth in Christ is directed by the sovereign hand of God (and yet this does not strip us of our responsibilty to boldly proclaim Him.) No, we should never be ashamed of where we are in Christ unless we have something to be ashamed of. And honestly, what we should be ashamed of is not proclaiming Him boldly in our lives, how we live, in our words. Truly and by the grace of God, I pray that we comprehend this privilege daily.
The Bible is not a narrative as Mr. McLaren boldly proclaims it is. Mr McLaren is defacing who God is and supressing what God has revealed in His Word or truth and His creation. The Bible is the very Word of God. And may we never be ashamed to proclaim Him.
When I survey the wondrous cross
on which the Prince of Glory died;
my richest gain I count but loss,
and pour contempt on all my pride.
Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast,
save in the death of Christ, my God;
all the vain things that charm me most,
I sacrifice them to his blood.
See, from his head, his hands, his feet,
sorrow and love flow mingled down.
Did e’er such love and sorrow meet,
or thorns compose so rich a crown.
Were the whole realm of nature mine,
that were an offering far too small;
love so amazing, so divine,
demands my soul, my life, my all.
29. Evan May
April 10, 2006
12:32 PM
For anyone curious about the chorus lyrics to “I Come By the Blood,” they are:
I come by the blood, I come by the cross
Where your mercy flows from hands pierced for me
For I dare not stand on my righteousness
My every hope rests on what Christ has done
And I come by the blood
30. Diane
April 10, 2006
12:46 PM
Perhaps Brian McLaren doesn’t answer the questions because he really doesn’t KNOW what the Bible says? I think that is a distinct possibility.
I read his book A Generous Orthodoxy and found the writing within to be dangerous to the Christian Community.
I do think we need to be very firm in pointing out false teachings and heresies and I am SO grateful to Tim and others who do so.
I know I have to be very careful to not cast uncharitable judgements on Brian, yet we all need to be very discerning in what we read and who we are taught by.
I have to be careful to thank God that anything I understand the scriptures to say come by God’s grace in my life.
I have an idea.. if everyone who reads this post today prays for Brian to have eyes to see… perhaps God in His kindness would give Brian eyes to see??? I stand convicted that I should pray for the likes of Brian McLaren and Rick Warren and Doug Pagitt… etc etc etc……. and while I’m at it, pray for myself that I will have eyes to see, that God would open my eyes to always see the beauty and TRUTH of His word… Excuse me for now… I better go to my closet….. :)
31. DLE
April 10, 2006
12:52 PM
I’m not a McLaren apologist. In fact, I openly opposed much of his ideology at the church I formerly attended. (Ironically, the pastor of McLaren’s old church was a pastor at my old church before that. Wild and very small world.)
As to the issue of never answering questions, I do want to make one comment. Having taught in a classroom setting, I understand that sometimes it’s not the answers that are wrong, but the questions, particularly if a teacher is aiming students toward a paradigm shift in thinking.
Asking the same questions over and over can lead to a rut in understanding. But if an area of truth has not been sufficiently explored, will anyone ever ask a question about it?
If the continent of Australia were still unknown, no one would ask about the embryology of mammals that lay eggs. A person even speculating on the existence of egg-laying mammals would be hooted out of a serious discussion of zoology. But we know there are mammals that lay eggs and a question about the development of their embryos is perfectly legitimate. But that question is only validated if Australia—and it’s echidnas and duckbilled platypuses—is known.
While I don’t agree with McLaren’s solutions, I think he has some valid questions for the Church (and plenty of invalid ones, too.) Are we functioning 100% as the Church Jesus set up? I’m not certain that we should rest in the knowledge that we’re “doing church” exactly as the Lord intended in every last element of church life. If it’s true that we don’t have it all down, we may have to start rethinking our questions before we answer them in total. That may be the thinking behind McLaren’s non-answers: get the askers to consider more radical questions.
But then it might all be a dodge anyway. ;-)
32. John R.
April 10, 2006
1:09 PM
Fascinating report, Tim. Thanks.
It seems that there really is nothing new under the sun. The same (perhaps implied) dichotomy between the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul is nothing new to New Testament criticism. In fact, I find it highly ironic, in light of Emergent’s supposed disdain for modernism, that they implicitly embrace one of the main planks of modernistic biblical higher criticism. The method is rooted firmly in the 19th century.
I coincidentally happen to be reading D.G. Hart’s biography of J. Gresham Machen right now, and was struck by how similar McLaren’s approach seems to be to the modernists Gresham was battling. A fixation on the gospels without the corresponding interpretation provided by Paul and the other epistle-writers is not Christianity, whatever else it is.
Machen wrote “Christianity and Liberalism” in the early 1920’s. Yet it’s as applicable now as it was over 80 years ago.
33. Bo Fawbush
April 10, 2006
1:18 PM
If “Boldness is Our Birthright” and “Jesus Christ gives boldness to His people,” why would you not confront this heresy to McLaren’s face rather than ask no questions, choosing only to listen? It is VERY easy to be “bold” on a blog and profess “McLaren hates God,” while being mousy in his presence. These type of blogs that purport to have proper doctrine and practice when it comes to the things of God, but take no actual stand for TRUTH when given opportunity are nothing short of hypocrisy. (Especially when you go back and change something you said earlier).
34. bibliomaniac
April 10, 2006
1:29 PM
4ever4given—thanks for your comments and the words from When I Survey the Wondrous Cross.
Fawbush—fact is, McLaren knows very well what others think of him, and has been asked questions about his methodology. In fact, Tim documents for us in his post—one person asked McLaren if his dodging of questions is intentional or not.
DLE—seems to me you’re trying to deflect legitimate criticism of McLaren by saying sometimes it’s the questions that are wrong. Well, if the questions are wrong, a good and wise teacher gently helps the students to learn that.
But it’s not the questions we should be concerned about here—whether or not they are wrong, or good, or whatever. It’s the answers that are being given. They dodge, and they lack scriptural backup. In other words, the answers are seriously deficient.
From an intellectual standpoint, some might find this stimulating. But from a spiritual standpoint, it leaves people starving. The Word is our source of life and nourishment. Church leaders are commanded to preach the Word, feed the sheep, nurture them in the faith. It appears McLaren didn’t do any of those that evening.
That says a lot.
35. david
April 10, 2006
1:51 PM
When I corrected the “hates God” quote, I was not calling anyone a liar, only correcting an inaccurate quote. I made no judgment of the cause. Evidently, Tim changed that statement. Should I now complain that I was called a liar? I don’t think so.
In any case, the god of the emergents is not the God of the Bible. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that McLaren loves [his version of] Jesus but hates [the God of the Bible].
As for Tim’s decision to not ask questions, it only makes sense. McLaren doesn’t actually answer questions - just ask him. His heresy has been confronted, to no avail. What is wrong with going as an observer, and reporting on it? Tim is really only writing what we already knew, and no amount of questioning would have changed that.
As usual Carla judges McLaren’s character but then what can be expect from the keeper of the anti-emergnet flame?
The keeper of the anti-emergent flame! High praise, indeed!
36. bill
April 10, 2006
2:22 PM
Tim,
I would say that the very fact that McLaren sat in front of an audience and spoke about Christianity as a professing Christian, displays and portrays the very boldness that Paul claims in Ephesians 3.
Paul is telling Gentiles that they have the same access to God’s grace through faith as do the Jews through their genetic line and rich cultural heritage. All people can now live according to God’s wishes. And this ability was made possible through Christ. That is the Mystery that Paul speaks of. We can boldly claim the same inheritance as daughters and sons of God that the Jews claim. This is the boldness that Paul speaks of.
As for propositional truth: it may be a good beginning but some of us want to go beyond it. Propositional truth is merely a man-made claim to membership like heredity and circumcision were for the Jews, against whose counter teaching Paul struggled. Claims of holding truth are human centered and not God centered. Only God holds truth. I don’t. The best I can do is to trust God which is faith. Belief meant to hold in high esteem and to highly regard, just 150 years ago. To believe God means to hold him and his ways in such high regard that my life changes to match closer and closer to God’s truth. Believing is not a philosophical matter but a matter of the soul. It is a heart matter. To believe someone or something is to hold it so dear that it fills my soul—my inner being.
Therefore, propositional truth can easily become idolatrous because it becomes a god for those who highly regard it and believe in it. When I put my trust in propositional truth and highly esteem it, it fills my soul and I become a follower of man-made philosophy instead of a follower of God.
37. Carla
April 10, 2006
2:23 PM
I wasn’t aware I had such a noble title. :o) I’ll take it though, it has a lovely ring to it, eh?
I do find it rather curious to see such a reaction from Tim’s obervations. It very much reminds me of how the pro-revival folks in the 90’s reacted when you told them that leaping about in the sanctuary like a frog, and roaring like a lion or flapping your arms in wing motions like a chicken, was actually not to be found in Scripture, anywhere.
And now we’ve got the ECM defenders running around, prepared to defend this movement (and it’s leaders) & trash anyone who gets in their way of doing it.
Has this man and his movement really hooked people so deeply that they can’t see what they’re doing?
38. Darryl
April 10, 2006
2:24 PM
Just got back from the same meeting as Tim. I concur that Tim is gracious and fair, and I appreciate him changing the quote about McLaren, so I hope we can put that behind us.
I think Tim does raise some valid points here, although some of them are much broader than Saturday night. The issues are:
1. the role of Scripture
2. the value of certainty
3. a biblical theology that includes all of Scripture, including Paul and Jesus
I’m with Tim in being concerned about all three things.
I personally didn’t hear McLaren undermine these points on Saturday night, but I think it’s worth getting them on the table because they certainly are important issues, and Tim and others picked them up.
I think Reformed and emergent types have a lot to learn from each other, and I still have this pipe dream that the learning will begin soon (and that assumes there is something of value in both streams, which I am prepared to assume). Hope so.
39. Tim Challies
April 10, 2006
2:34 PM
After sitting on the 401 for half an hour waiting for an accident to be cleaned up, I am home. This morning’s meeting was excellent. More on that later.
Let me address a few things here after a quick read of the comments.
Yes, I changed a sentence in my article. I did so because I think I over-stated something. I felt that it might suggest that I was passing judgment on McLaren’s salvation and that was not my intent.
I posted the article this morning and a few minutes later, before there were any comments, changed the sentence. I would have posted a note explaining this, but I was literally just about to run out the door. So that is the explanation behind that!
Why did I not ask a question of Brian McLaren two nights ago? Two reasons. First, I am shy and standing up within a crowd like that doesn’t sit well with me. I would have no trouble standing in front of a crowd to address it, but have a great deal of trouble asking questions from within a crowd. Strange, I’m sure. Second, I don’ think it would have done any good. McLaren was only using questions to springboard his agenda. The actual questions asked rarely received any real consideration and were rarely answered. Plus, what would I ask the guy that he hasn’t already been asked? What would I ask him that would make me feel better about his ministry? What he believes is indelibly printed in the pages of many, many books. I do not need to ask him a question to know what he believes.
40. wendy
April 10, 2006
2:35 PM
Bill:
You said: “Propositional truth is merely a man-made claim to membership like heredity and circumcision were for the Jews, against whose counter teaching Paul struggled”
What if propositional truth is God’s truth and not man’s as you claim? If the Bible is not perspicuous than how do you know which parts are “true” and which aren’t? How can you ever have any confidence in what you believe and how can you offer such “truth” to others who have the equal “right” to come to their own conclusions?
For example, how do you know the mystery Paul speaks of is the Jew and Gentile saved by faith in Christ alone, by God’s grace alone?
BTW I am not being sarcastic nor contentious. I really would like to hear your explanation. Thanks,
41. bibliomaniac
April 10, 2006
2:39 PM
Bill said, “Therefore, propositional truth can easily become idolatrous because it becomes a god for those who highly regard it and believe in it.”
That sounds like something the EC would say.
We as Christians are supposed to have a high regard for truth. We’re to cling to it, profess it, love it, and obey it. Ephesians 6:14 says to gird ourselves with the truth, 1 Peter 1:22 says we are purified in obeying it, 2 Peter 1:12 says we’re to be established in it.
It’s far better that we be known for a high regard for truth than a low one, such as is evident in EC circles.
42. Bruce Gerencser
April 10, 2006
2:44 PM
Carla,
Well of course we are blind. How else can you explain our lemmings like walk ?
These are the kind of comments that are not helpful. You refuse to see ANYONE who has any connection to emerging/emergent thought as an “equal.” Instead they are denigrated and stereotyped as people who simply are ignorant of the truth. Or worse yet, deliberate deceivers as the one person suggests because the “emergent god is not the God of the Bible.”
One of the favorite songs in the Emergent Cult is “sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.” I doubt that Brian McLaren will leave off his heresy by anything posted here today. His voice desperately needs to be heard today. He is not perfect and at times he is wide of the mark BUT he is a minster of the Gospel of Christ and he is attempting to be faithful to what God has called him to. We need many more like him, who are willing to get out of the 17th century and into the 21st century. Preaching the timeless gospel message in a new and relevant way.
Modernity is screaming and kicking as she draws her last breath. Many will continue to weep and lament at her grave but nothing can bring her back to life. RIP.
43. Mark Huelsing
April 10, 2006
2:57 PM
Tim, I wonder why you said you were so shy and that is why you did not ask questions. Did you not just write of some boldness that we should have in Christ. If you set yourself up against this man (which you definately have), should you not take boldness for what you believe. Your boldness through Christ that you professed should be more important than your “shy” personality.
Second. I hate the debates and arguments between Postmoderns, Emergents, Evangelicals, etc… We should be known for our love for one another. If we only loved one another instead of fighting!
44. george
April 10, 2006
3:14 PM
First time here Tim, I appreciate your comments.
I’ve been asking a lot of questions of emergent church folks in blogland and there is one question that they refuse to answer.
I’m wondering if someone here might help me out with this one. In Matthew 7 Jesus says this:
13”You can enter God’s Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell[d] is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose the easy way. 14But the gateway to life is small, and the road is narrow, and only a few ever find it.
What does that mean for emergent types? What is the narrow road and how does one know if they are actually on it?
Why is it that emergent types have such a hard time with that question?
45. Bibliomaniac
April 10, 2006
3:15 PM
Mark said, “Second. I hate the debates and arguments between Postmoderns, Emergents, Evangelicals, etc… We should be known for our love for one another. If we only loved one another instead of fighting!”
Mark, when it comes to fighting over nonessentials, you’re absolutely right. But when it comes to the whole matter of how God’s truth is viewed and handled, we’re talking about the very core of our faith…and thus we SHOULD be concerned and we SHOULD speak up.
Our prime example here is the apostle Paul, who was not afraid to confront others when it came to handling God’s truth accurately.
46. WarrenL
April 10, 2006
3:24 PM
Bill,
I am trying to understand the point you are trying to make. I would agree that propositional truth can in, and of itself become the object of worship but surely within the Christian context, propositional truth ‘correctly’ points us to our object of worship - God as revealed in scripture.
I am rather confused by your comments, therefore, please would you explain “To believe God means to hold him and his ways in such high regard that my life changes to match closer and closer to God’s truth.”
1. What is God’s truth?
2. When and how do you know that your life has changed to match closer and closer to God’s truth?
3. What exactly fills your soul, your inner being?
47. Bruce Gerencser
April 10, 2006
3:26 PM
George,
How many emergent types have you met?
Count me as one………..
The narrow road is the path of a follower of Jesus Christ. His eye is fixed on the author and finisher of his faith, Jesus Christ. He is following after the way, the truth, and the life. His only hope is in Jesus. He is trusting in Christ alone for the forgiveness of sin and life eternal.
You will find MANY emerging type pastors who are clear on what the narrow way is. The fact you can find some who are not does not invalidate the movement. I grew up Baptist. Put 25 Baptists in a room and you get 30 different opinions. Should the error of “some” Baptists invalidate ALL Baptists?
Pigeon holing, wide brush painting, stereotyping are the quickest ways to stop a discussion (if that is what this thread is all about)
48. Brian Thornton
April 10, 2006
3:32 PM
In any case, the god of the emergents is not the God of the Bible.
So true, David!
The “Pied Piper of Post-Modernism”, as Os Guiness calls McLaren, apparently knows all about what is wrong with the church today, but has absolutely no clue how to fix it.
This emergent movement/conversation/confusion/whatever is nothing but recycled heresy that’s been repackaged for today’s undiscerning “Christian”.
I agree with MacArthur who said, “I could understand this movement better if wasn’t called the church”. In other words…it is not part of the true church. I know those are harsh words, but sometimes the truth stings.
49. Tom Hinkle
April 10, 2006
3:32 PM
I, like Scott, have read (actually, I’m in the process of reading) “The Secret Message of Jesus.” Scott must have missed the chapter where McLaren deals extensively with Paul and sees Paul bringing the message of Jesus into the next generation. Maybe you’d better read the book again, Scott.
I think the problem a lot of you have with this “red letters” vs. “black letters” situation is that you’ve actually ignored the red letters in favor of the black letters, and to tip the balance back again is too much for you because you are entrenched in your Calvinistic way of thinking.
50. Nathan Colquhoun
April 10, 2006
3:33 PM
Hey Tim, it was great meeting you today, look forward to more interaction with you in the future. Interesting post to say the least, its amazing how we can both go there and have two different experiences in the same room, and its coming together and talking about them that will help us both i think, so i admire your boldness in doing so.
Nathan.
www.nathancolquhoun.com
51. Diane
April 10, 2006
3:50 PM
in the midst of all this discussion let’s not lose sight of the awesome music put out by Sovereign Grace Ministries! It is so glorifying to God! Thanks for posting those lyrics! I attend a Sovereign Grace church…. what a privilege to worship God with lyrics like that!
52. Earl
April 10, 2006
4:22 PM
Tim,
While I was not at the McLaren presentation Saturday night I would have to say that you are right on in your understanding of gospels vs epistles. A great article about this is Scot McKnight’s overview of the emergent movement “Fad or Future” at www.covchurch.org/cov/companion/feature_article.html (February 2006).
53. bill
April 10, 2006
4:31 PM
Wendy,
You caught me. I didn’t make my point very well, did I? There are two reasons for that and I think they fit into this discussion.
First, I am a product of modernity, trained in science and therefore unable to figure out truth that goes beyond the logic that is a big part of how I think. Not all cultures think the way we do. I can’t shed who I am, and I’m stuck using the tools in my toolbox. I’m not saying that logical thinking is bad, BTW. Only that there is more.
Secondly, I don’t really have a strong grasp of the point I wanted to make. I’m still struggling to figure it out. But this doesn’t stop me from trying. Trying and failing and trying again, is the only way to truly “know” something. Merely agreeing with it is not as powerful a “knowing” as is one that develops through trying, failing and eventually succeeding.
Having stumbled through that explanation, I’d like to try to answer your final question.
Wendy asked:
“For example, how do you know the mystery Paul speaks of is the Jew and Gentile saved by faith in Christ alone, by God’s grace alone?”
The only way I know to begin to know what Paul is speaking of is to follow his logical argument. Which is the point I think you’re making. So, I agree that propositional truth is necessary. However, I’m coming to see something beyond a faith built on propositional truth. It may not be able to stand alone without propositional truth. But it is deeper and has a more profound effect on my life.
After decades of learning, discussion and thinking on this, the point that Paul makes (and others in scripture) is beginning to be for me intuitively obvious. That is, it is beginning to stand on its own like an understanding or a skill developed through lots of training. Riding a bicycle, for example, becomes sort of second nature after awhile and I no longer need to think about it logically to stay upright, etc. Yes, I know that you can’t tell that from my failed attempt at explanation. Neither can I tell someone what this is. It is a knowledge that is hard won. It can’t be had through logic. But, as far as I can understand, logic and propositional truth is the beginning point.
See, I think that God writing his laws on our hearts is this sort of knowing. When God’s ways become a part of me, then doing his will is second nature, like riding a bike. I don’t need to think about them logically because they become a part of me. Not that I am there. But I want to be like that, knowing God’s will as a part of my inner being. This sort of knowing is beyond logic and programming. If I had it, it would be part of my nature. And now that I can imagine it, I want it more than anything. I think that this sort of knowing God is what Paul calls the “perfect” in 1 Corinthians 13. When I attain this, if ever I could, then I would have no more need of tounges, knowledge (as in propositional truth), phophecies, etc.
Please let me know where this makes sense and where it fails.
54. Ian Clary
April 10, 2006
4:34 PM
Wow, it took a while to get to the bottom of this page! Lots of comments - obviously a hot topic and one that is important to many.
I was glad to get the chance to meet up with you on Saturday, in spite of the frustration of the talk.
55. Paul Martin
April 10, 2006
4:35 PM
I thought I ought to confirm that Tim and Darryl and Nathan were all at the same place Saturday night and today. I was there, too. I think all of us were there out of a love for the Lord and a desire to understand each other. Why, Tim, Darryl and Nathan might have even shared a doughnut today! I couldn’t really tell, but they were talking calmly with one another and even smiling!
As for not asking questions… you really had to be at the event to understand why that was in many ways difficult. Not only does someone have to have to get over their fears, but you are trying to engage the speaker and really listen at the same time. And quite honestly, McLaren can talk! There was only one answer that I recall lasting less than 15 minutes… so, even though it was a Q. and A., there was a lot more A. than Q.
All three of these guys were at a paper I was delivering today on emergent… and we had over an hour of excellent discussion following. I am posting that paper at
http://examiningemergent.blogspot.com/. I invite you to come over and join the discussion there.
One last thing - the chorus of the song that Tim spoke of in his post goes like this:
I come by the blood, I come by the cross
Where Your mercy flows from hands pierced for me
For I dare not stand on my righteousness
My every hope rests on what Christ has done
And I come… by the blood…
I suppose that is the heart of the issue. Is our hope in that Jesus alone!
56. 4ever4given
April 10, 2006
4:39 PM
Hinkle said “entrenched in your Calvinistic way of thinking”
More rightly said “entrenched in sound Biblical thinking”
57. Tim Challies
April 10, 2006
5:01 PM
“I think the problem a lot of you have with this “red letters” vs. “black letters” situation is that you’ve actually ignored the red letters in favor of the black letters, and to tip the balance back again is too much for you because you are entrenched in your Calvinistic way of thinking”
And I think that is an absurd comment. I favor neither the red nor the black, but regard them all as equal. They are all fully the word of God. However, it must be said that Paul and the other apostles (but especially Paul) were given the unique task and privilege of interpreting Jesus’ statements and ministry. Thus to ignore Paul when we study Jesus is lunacy.
58. riddle
April 10, 2006
5:10 PM
it’s probably an assumption to say that Brian hates propositions or the black letters of the bible.
I would say that Brian interprets Paul through Jesus, not Jesus through Paul.
I think that’s an important distinction.
I find it interesting also, that anyone who has any understanding of our scripture, would have a problem with taking the words of Jesus seriously, whatever color they are.
59. Nathaniel Winn
April 10, 2006
5:19 PM
I don’t have a dog in this fight. I just wanted to point out, since it seems to have gone unnoticed, that the following words have been written about brothers and sisters in Christ:
—“cowards [that] will not inherit the Kingdom.”
—“loves [his version of] Jesus but hates [the God of the Bible].”
I’m leaving off the accusation of God hating, since it was amended to merely question a brother’s love for God.
I honestly don’t know or care about this whole Emergent-whatever-it-is.
But I *know*, boldly, that God is displeased by the words that have been hurled against His beloved in this comment thread.
60. wfseube
April 10, 2006
5:22 PM
Tim, how fascinating that you would write on this topic today. I just wrote a 2-page email to a friend on the topic of how emergents are pushing aside the Epistles in favor of their own interpretation of the Gospels, as if the rest of the New Testament was not canon. It appears that the rampant attitude in the EC regarding the Epistles is “oh, that’s just Paul’s opinion”, rather than the inspired Word of God.
There’s a very interesting discussion thread on Scot McKnight’s blog from a couple of days ago: http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=914. In that thread you will note numerous quotes from ECers who make comments such as “The EM has to grapple with Paul-” or talk of “re-cast(ing) how we see Romans”. There is clearly a movement to minimize the validity of the writings of Paul, which begins to erode sola Scriptura. As Tim says in his early post - the “red and black letters” are every bit equal to one another. “All Scripture is God-breathed”.
And, if I were Tim, I wouldn’t have asked questions of McLaren either. Can you imagine the blogosphere headlines to that scenario: “Christian Blogger Tim Challies Causes McLaren’s Head to Explode by Asking a Theological Question”?? It wouldn’t be pretty….
——
bill
61. Jeri
April 10, 2006
5:37 PM
Tim, you have done well with this post. I haven’t read all the comments so someone else may have said this, but in response to the thought that some postmoderns may love Jesus, the red letters, but not God, I’ll say the obvious, that the Jesus they are loving is not the Jesus who really is, either. He is revealed as much through the epistles as through His own words.
You really did well here. Thanks for the wonderful insight.
62. bill
April 10, 2006
5:40 PM
Warren,
Sorry for the confused logic in my “bold” (pun intended) attempt to argue against logic with bad logic. I’ve responded to Wendy’s question above, which may answer your questions as well.
You asked these questions:
1.What is God’s truth?
2. When and how do you know that your life has changed to match closer and closer to God’s truth?
3. What exactly fills your soul, your inner being?
There is likely no way that I can answer your first question without offending someone but I want to give an honest response. Firstly, I don’t claim to know God’s truth. I believe that it is bigger than my ability to comprehend. However, I will take a stab at it.
One essential part of God’s truth is love. God is merciful and just and these are governed by his love. When we love God, we do his will. When we love, we commit no sin. When we love, we forgive sins committed against us. When we love, we put others first and ourselves last. Love is the great lesson of the cross.
The writings of John point to this and I think that Paul is saying as much in 1 Corinthians 13. In that chapter, Paul says that love is the ultimate, the “perfect.” I don’t think that Paul is saying that love stands alone. That is, I’m not claiming that I can do anything as long as I love. However, I do believe that loving others, and of course God, will change me for the better. This is the message of John 3. For me at least.
After the famous line in John 3:16, Jesus goes on to say: “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” Believing, according to Wilfred Cantwell Smith, used to mean “to hold in high regard.” It means something close to “belove.” Therefore, to “believe in Jesus” does not mean to believe that he exists or existed. Believing in the Son means that I hold him and his teachings in such high regard that I fashion my life after him. It takes time. It requires effort. And it shows in a life that is increasingly like that of Jesus because Jesus showed us what God is like. He is our standard.
I hope this makes some sense. I’m not claiming to have it all figured out. But assenting to propositional truths no longer make sense to me. They are a beginning, I think. But I want to actually do something with my belief. This is what James points out when he says: “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.” James also points out that “faith without works is dead.” This means to me that my faith and the things that I hear should result in something. That merely repeating the right things, answering the right way, believing the right propotional truths, amount to nothing if they do not produce a better life in me.
63. Brian Thornton
April 10, 2006
5:42 PM
I honestly don’t know or care about this whole Emergent-whatever-it-is.
But I *know*, boldly, that God is displeased by the words that have been hurled against His beloved in this comment thread.
Nathaniel, a few quick comments about your remarks.
If you truly don’t know or care about this “whole Emergent-whatever-it-is”, and you consider yourself to be a true disciple of Jesus Christ who loves true truth, you would do well to get at least a cursory understanding of what is at the heart of this ‘conversation’.
Along that same line…if you don’t know or even care about what is involved in this discussion, then how can you know that God is displeased by the distinctions that some of us are making? For all you know, what is stake here is the very heart of Christianity vs. the schemes of the devil (which many of us believe).
Finally, I must respectfully disagree with you that God is displeased by this discussion. THE APOSTLE OF LOVE - PAUL HIMSELF - SAID THAT IF ANYONE COMES TO YOU PREACHING ANOTHER JESUS OR ANOTHER GOSPEL, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA (ACCURSED).
I don’t know about what you think about that, but I bet God was well pleased that Paul would be so bold as to make a divisive distinction like that. And much of what encompasses a heretical movement such as that of the Emergent one, is of such importance that distinctions and divisions MUST be made.
Doctrine divides, brother…let’s not be confused about that truth. Praise God that men with a voice and an audience - like Tim Challies - are willing to stand up and make those distinctions, even at the cost of his own popularity.
64. Bene Diction
April 10, 2006
5:45 PM
Tim admitting he is shy - is huge here people.
Huge.
Shyness colours how somone sees the world and how he/she relates to it. Shyness is painful and crippling on far more than a social level.
He stated clearly was not comfortable at this event and although discomfort comes out in compensatory ways that may offend some that don’t share that personality trait; you can’t fix it, and shy people don’t need to be attacked because they compensate with ideas, needs, intellecualizing or spiritualizing or any other ‘ing’ or ‘ism’.
Tim can get help if he thinks he needs it, he lives in a country where that is available to him.
His admission goes a long way to explain the tone and content of this post, and actually many of his prior ones. For cripes sake, his wife had to jump in here and ask some of you fools to simmer down.
He feels what he feels, say thanks and leave him be.
65. bibliomaniac
April 10, 2006
6:23 PM
Bene: I can’t speak for Tim, but I thought it was pretty clear that the tone and content of Tim’s post was NOT due to his shyness, but because of his concern for God’s truth.
There are introverts AND extroverts who feel exactly the way Tim does about McLaren and the EC. So shyness doesn’t have anything to do with how McLaren is viewed.
As for shyness being crippling, I never would have guessed it based on the countless astute observations I’ve gleaned from this blog.
66. Bene Diction
April 10, 2006
7:04 PM
bibliomaniac, I agree, introverts and extroverts can come to the same conclusions.
How they express those conclusions has a great to do with where they fall along the spectrum of introversion and extroversion, it is rare to see either/or and foolish for not to factor in other externals. Tim made himself very clear.
For example: Tim says he is more comfortable speaking in front of a crowd (to address) than in one. That speaks volumes about approach to discussion, and doesn’t negate levels of discomfort.
I agree, it would be appalling to suggest shyness shows a lack of intellectual acuity, ability or giftedness to express oneself in other mediums. The fact you’ve gleaned astute observations from Tim’s blog (writing) is a testament to compensatory choices .
Thank you for making that clear.:^)
67. Kevin
April 10, 2006
7:07 PM
Bill-
What you’re doesn’t seem to make much sense to me. There are times when I think I understand, but then you come back on yourself. Of course, there is the chance that I am too tied down to propositional truth to realize you are only talking about how you feel, but even then, your argument is confusing.
How exactly is it that propositional truth holds us back from “actually doing something?” Why is the clear propositional truth of the Bible not enough? In reading your previous posts, I recognized a wisp of what you were saying. It sounded like we, as Christians, cannot simply believe in propositional truth on an intellectual level. I agree with that. It’s called faith. However, I don’t know what you mean by going “beyond propositional truth.” Our faith is bound to the same propositional truth we believe. We test our faith by that truth, or we have no foundation to stand on. It’s not only the beginning point, but it is the constant standard we can look to. We can’t just fly by the seat of our pants, making Christianity into what fits for us, can we? We are to conform to Christianity, conform to the propositional truths of the Bible. What do you mean by saying you can’t “assent to propositional truth?” You have something more definitive for me to go on than truth? What do you want to do that is beyond that truth?
I appreciate how obvious it is that you are thinking through this, and sincerely too. I’m just afraid I cannot comprehend how propositional truth limits our Faith, instead of defining it.
68. billmelone
April 10, 2006
7:11 PM
I think its good that people are pointing out links to Scot McKnight but I think it would be good for there to be some interaction with stuff that Scot says about the gospel and boldness etc. He calls himself emergent but has an approach to truth that might surprise some people—I think its easy to drop a label like emergent or postmodern. I think a lot of the conotations that are thrown in with those labels bring the ‘my best against your worst’ argument thats been leveled at McLaren (apparently somewhat rightly because he admitted it on his blog).
I like the conversation that Bill is having (not just because he has a good name), it interacts with the original issue of boldness that Tim brought up and also with the reference tim made to Romans 11. My answers to the 3 questions would be
1. That which is
2. When you’re living like Jesus (not necessarily Paul which may be a part of the issue with Jesus vs. Paul—the words we have from both are authoritative but Jesus example is divine and Pauls example can only lean toward that)
3. God
And the thing about these answers is that you can answer them in a short way but in a sense you didn’t answer them—because there is so much more explanation required. But to give full explanation would go on and on and become so long that it is hardly an answer at all. Which is also the issue i see in propositions—they are shortened word descriptions of a longer larger three dimensional or spiritual dimensional reality. In one sense they can never be sufficient—and i think that a lot of ‘emergents’ don’t see those they disagree with struggling with our weakness and the inscrutibility of Gods ways and get frustrated that answers and conclusions are just coming out—but not as a result of a demonstrated struggle to get there.
(plus i think theres a larger issue with propositions in that you can’t produce an algorithm or framework for the entire existence of propositions—do they have to include nouns, pronouns verbs in a certain order—i think it might be better for us to simply talk about ‘summing up’ with more or less words, always trying to show the further depths, while still maintaining that which is clear—which is maybe what Paul is doing in Romans where he sees certain things clearly like who Jesus is, but then also opens the window to remind you in chapter 11 that there are further dimensions to all of this that we just don’t know).
Thanks tim for sticking your head out on this issue—I’m sure you knew it would be a controversial blog.
69. gamullet
April 10, 2006
7:15 PM
Tim, interesting and insightful post. Give me the trumpet that sounds a clear note!
70. billmelone
April 10, 2006
7:19 PM
Kevin, i didn’t see your post before i posted mine and i’ll throw you my two cents if it helps. I think that truth is that which is, and that it doesn’t always come in the form of propositions (like I asked before—what exactly is a proposition anyway? nouns, verbs, how many) just like protein doesn’t always come in the form of peanut butter. Not all living things have a spine. And I don’t think that all truth is necessarily in the form of propositions. It seems to me that the word ‘proposition’ is basically the word we use to describe a sentence that sums something up. The issue is whether or not it is a good summation and I think that Paul in chapter 11 is sort of throwing out almost a disclaimer, saying that we’ve talked about all this real stuff about God but there is infinitely more we could talk about.
71. bill (loves propositional truth) streger
April 10, 2006
7:30 PM
wow, tim - you have GOT to write that book about getting a million comments… I just checked back after leaving my comment this morning and WOW.
Thanks for the clarification about not asking questions - I understand where you’re coming from. Great word in the post today - very encouraging. McLaren seems to get more and more dangerous with every book he writes.
72. bill
April 10, 2006
7:48 PM
Kevin,
Thanks for the thoughtful response. It’s good to know when I don’t make sense.
I’m concerned that I’m taking up too much space on Tim’s blog and that I’ve moved off topic. But I really appreciate the discussion.
Most importantly, I agree with you. It isn’t my intention to throw rocks at the foundation of Christianity, nor at the bases for someone’s faith. Truth and propositional truth are important. I don’t want to undermine that importance. My complaint against some extremes of Enlightenment Christianity is the reliance on propositional truth, only.
For example, I had a discussion with a family member (rather Fundamentalist Christian) this weekend at a portrait studio where we were posing for reunion photos. This relative mentioned that he could merely buy one copy of a pose, take it home and make copies in the sizes and quantities he needed virtually for free. When I stated that copying photos taken by a photographer is a violation of copyright, he said: “I don’t care about copyright.” And he attends church regularly and could spout off most foundational propositional truths. But these have no effect on his life because he knows them but doesn’t really “know” them.
Some readers might say that this man is just not “saved.” Or, perhaps he’s a liar and doesn’t really believe what he says he believes. And I would agree with the second conclusion. Except that my definition of “belief” is not “agreement” nor “assent” but is instead more like “holding to” “being changed by,” and the like. Although he “agree” with and “assents to” these foundational truths, they’ve had little effect on his life these past 70 years or so because he hasn’t truly “believed.”
73. Kevin
April 10, 2006
8:08 PM
Thanks billmelone for your comment. Unfortunately, it leads to me more questions though. I’m afraid it is going to start getting confusing for me because it seems that while you say we should be moving beyond a propositional truth, I can’t comprehend how exactly that would look. I mean, we can’t even hope to move this conversation beyond propositions, or the conversation would cease, right? Or at it’s very least it would start being absolutely ridiculous.
I think i get what you are saying. There is something meaningful behind our propositions, that is not limited to those propositions. For instance, a child says to himself “Fire is hot.” There is much more to that propositional statement that we could consider, because there is much more to fire than that. However, no matter how far you want to try and go, you will always be bound to the propositional truth that fire is, in fact, hot. it’s inescapable. (Granted that is a very simplistic example)
What i can’t understand is how you can say we should be moving past propositional truth, and yet there is no real way to “propose” that without reverting right back to propositional truth. It is insensible. We rely on that type of truth for everything in life, right?
Moreover, this statement is unclear:
I think that Paul in chapter 11 is sort of throwing out almost a disclaimer, saying that we’ve talked about all this real stuff about God but there is infinitely more we could talk about.
First, when I read Romans, it didn’t sound so much like Paul and I were talking about this stuff, but that he was proposing truth. And secondly, I am once again unsure what it is that you mean by the “infinitely more that we can be talking about,” if that is beyond propositional truth (and when you say “real stuff about God”, do you mean propositional truth?).
So in short, why do you want to go beyond the “real stuff?” And,
how do you get there without losing any sense of reason? Or does that matter?
74. billmelone
April 10, 2006
9:14 PM
Thanks Kevin for your questions, and Bill, that is a great story to explain what you’re getting at.
Kevin, I think you still don’t get what I’m thinking about with propositions. To say ‘propositional truth’ is to address content and form. Truth is the content, proposition is the form. Just like you and I, the soul is the content and our bodies are the form. ‘Propositions’ are a certain form that truth is put into as it were. How do you define precisely what a proposition is? (i’m not being rhetorical, I’m looking for your response) Do you use pronouns? nouns? can you get away without verbs sometimes?
“There is something meaningful behind our propositions, that is not limited to those propositions.” exactly (that meaningful thing is truth)
“you will always be bound to the propositional truth that fire is, in fact, hot. it’s inescapable” not exactly (in the sense of how did you come to say that “fire is hot” as being propositional. yes I know its a proposition but how did you get to that point—we need to talk about things as true or false before they are propositions, or maybe we can’t talk about truth or falsity without something being a proposition—is that how you would define a proposition?)
When I’m talking about being beyond propositional truth I’m meaning to ask if we must always talk about truth as propositions. I would tend to define a proposition as an attempt to sum up a topic. Which takes us to the question—can you ever sufficiently sum something up (especially when we’re talking about something as complicated as God)? And the answer is of course yes, of course because God has chosen to sum himself up in the Bible. However, he has also chosen to sum himself up at times as being “unsummupable”—which is Paul’s cry in Romans 11 i think.
A couple points—must we talk about propositions? why not just say that we use words that can be constituted to put forth something as being true? Why try to establish a certain literary form when words are complicated enough as it is.
Another point—i know people on both sides of this issue—I go to an essentially reformed church, but i also live in a big city and go to an art school. the people that want us to talk less about propositions are the ones who sometimes (not always) want those that love propositions to talk more about the infinite unknowable nature of God. Whether that observation is a needed one (saying that reformed folk do indeed talk more of their own knowledge than they should) or not, I think its one that reformed folk should be more open to (my own observation).
75. billmelone
April 10, 2006
9:16 PM
oh and that is what i was trying to say about Romans—that Paul was proposing truth. But I think he was saying in chapter 11 that there is a lot more that could be said that we don’t know. basically
76. Μιχαη&lambda:
April 10, 2006
10:30 PM
A couple of things:
1. Do we really consider the emergent church/movement/conversation/monologue to be within the evangelical sheep pen?
2. To focus on one section of Scripture - even the words of Jesus Christ - in preference or neglect of any other is foolish (a) because the Holy Spirit wrote it all using the personalities - not of Jesus - but of His chosen messengers throughout the ages, including those biographers who gave us the gospels, and (b) there are no red letters in any of the Greek manuscripts. I recognize that ‘red’ and ‘black’ are being used as metonomies,* but it’s worth pointing out, nonetheless.
* I think it’s ‘metonomy’ I want, but my rhetoric is a bit rusty.
77. Randy Taylor
April 10, 2006
11:11 PM
I love prunes…
78. WarrenL
April 10, 2006
11:56 PM
Bill,
Thanks for answering my questions. I guess one of the great issues in the discussion between emergents and non-emergents is the definitions of the terms that we use. The funny thing is I regard the truths you cited as propositional truth and to most of what you said, I say Amen. I would agree that propositional truths by themselves never save a person or change a person.
In Jesus’ discussion with Nicodemus he clearly states that one needs to be born of water and the Spirit. For a long time I thought that water referred to natural birth, but lately I am becoming more and more convinced that Jesus is referring to the Word, Scripture. For faith comes from hearing and hearing from the Word of God. That is (propositional) truth applied to our lives by the Holy Spirit is what saves and transforms us.
One phrase out Pastor often uses is that it is less about the imitation of Christ and more about the habitation of Christ in our lives. Effort, no so much in trying to be like Christ, but surrendering to Him so that He, through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit lives through us.The only way I understand that is based on the propositional truths the Spirit reveals as I study His Word. Not just on an intellectual level but a spiritual level as well.
79. Brett
April 11, 2006
11:07 AM
True Story. Lecturing on the atonement, a theology professor at a well-known evangelical seminary was promoting the example theory and the moral theory, but arguing against the substituionary theory and was incredculous of the idea of a ransom that Christ paid. He reasoned that such barbaric ideas applied to the atonement was purely a result of Paul’s writings and was therefore only Paul’s opinions. One student asked, “Then what do you do with the fact that Jesus said that he gave his life as a ransom for many?” Silence. Pause. Answer? “I don’t know, I never thought about that. I’ll have to give it some thought.”
He now teaches at a liberal, left-leaning college.
In counseling, occasionally I come across people who are not interested in finding answers or direction. They just keep coming back with the same questions, in different forms. Eventually it is clear that they are not happy about the answers so they just keep asking the questions. The answers, unfortunately for them, don’t evolve or morph into something they like. McLaren’s audience will shrink to those who don’t like the answers the Bible gives but are too afraid to abandon the Bible.
Prediction: unless he changes course soon, Brian McLaren will not even be on the evangelical radar within 5-10 years.
80. bookdragon
April 11, 2006
11:19 AM
Although using stories seems to be considered a bad thing by some here, let me add to what Bill and others have been saying by way of a narrative. In particular, let me use someone else’s proposition that ‘Fire is hot’:
When my son was 18 mo old, I made a point of telling him to stay away from the stove because it was hot. He listened and seemed to understand. When came near the stove, he’d wave his hands in a stay-away gesture the way I did and say ‘stove hot’. Mommy had told him the stove was hot, and he believed me.
So, after a couple weeks, I came to think that he understood that he shouldn’t touch the stove because it was hot and took my eyes off him for a moment to fetch something from the pantry while I was cooking. The problem is that while he believed the statement ‘the stove is hot’ to be true because his Mommy had said so, he didn’t really understand what ‘hot’ meant and wasn’t at his age able to ask me for more info. And so, when I wasn’t looking, he reached up to find out what ‘hot’ meant.
Fortunately, it was a small burn and ice and aloe cream healed it pretty quickly. But now he not only believed the proposition ‘the stove is hot’ is true, he *understood* what that proposition meant in real terms.
And that understanding was evidenced by action: afterward he not only stood well back from the stove when I was cooking, but if his older sister came too close he ran at her waving his hands and saying ‘No, no! Stove hot!’
moral: Propositions are important as short, direct means of conveying ideas. But simply saying ‘X’ is true just really is not the same a truly believing it, because truly believing it means living it out in concrete ways.
81. John R.
April 11, 2006
11:41 AM
I’m always amused by the fact that attacks on propositional truth are always stated in the form of propositional truth.
82. billmelone
April 11, 2006
12:22 PM
John R, what is a proposition in exact terms? Do you think truth always comes in the form of propositions? I’m asking because you’re using the phrase ‘propositional truth’ in a way that I’m not sure makes clear that fact that truth exists outside the form of a proposition (and in the last 10 or 20 comments i don’t see any attack on propositional truth, but maybe on the demand that truth only exists in propositions).
83. wfseube
April 11, 2006
1:28 PM
bookdragon wrote: moral: Propositions are important as short, direct means of conveying ideas. But simply saying ‘X’ is true just really is not the same a truly believing it, because truly believing it means living it out in concrete ways.
I hope you still thank that when your son or daughter tells you that they were smoking crack because they needed to “live it out in a concrete way” so they could really believe what you told them about the fact that drugs were bad for them.
There are authoritative sources of propositional truth, and we risk a very high price for thumbing our noses at the authority and having to “experience it” to believe it.
——
bill
84. wfseube
April 11, 2006
1:28 PM
rats…. I wrote “thank that” above when I meant “think that”.
85. Brian Thornton
April 11, 2006
1:46 PM
Brett’s prediction:
unless he changes course soon, Brian McLaren will not even be on the evangelical radar within 5-10 years.
So true, Brett, unless McLaren abandons the dying movement of Post-Modernism and latches onto the next dying fad.
As MacArthur has said, the church always seems to buy into different movements and philosophies about 10 years too late…as they are fading out of popularity.
I wonder what the next one will be…
86. Trish
April 11, 2006
2:41 PM
Thanks Tim for your stand! I wasn’t there this time, but I have heard Brian M. at 2 other Q & A. periods use the same evasiveness. At the least it was unserving and insensitive, but it was also theologically frustrating.
87. bill
April 11, 2006
4:26 PM
Evangelicalism as we know it may find it difficult to even field a radar in 10 to 20 years. It bet rather heavily on political activism and some of its most visible leaders are wearing thin their legitimacy with the public. A public that has been increasingly avoiding church, going on 30 years. There are more than a few studies predicting that, at the current rate of loss, both the American and British churches will be empty within 1 or 2 generations. The Church of England recently asked the British government for money to help maintain their buildings because they don’t take in enough at the collection plate to tread water.
The purpose of the oft maligned “emerging church” is to reincarnate the body of Christ in today’s society. If it succeeds just a little bit, it will be larger than classical Evangelicalism within 2 decades. For better or for worse.
So, the guns now aimed at Brian McLaren will accomplish little more than shooting another messenger. But then, killing messengers is what Orthodoxy has historically done when challenged with a message it didn’t like.
God is much bigger than our little theologies. His ways are not the same as our ways. May His will be done despite our unbelief.
88. Brian Thornton
April 11, 2006
5:05 PM
“The purpose of the oft maligned “emerging church” is to reincarnate the body of Christ in today’s society.”
-What does it profit a man(church) to gain the whole world and yet forfeit his(it’s) own soul?
“If it succeeds just a little bit, it will be larger than classical Evangelicalism within 2 decades.”
-Whoop-tee-doo…at the cost of truth, which makes it’s “success” meaningless.
“For better or for worse.”
-FOR MUCH WORSE!
89. bookdragon
April 11, 2006
5:45 PM
bill,
Apparently I didn’t make myself clear in my moral section.
My intent was to say that when we really believe something - as opposed to just assenting to a statement - it shows in how we live our lives.
I was thinking of my son trying to protect his sister from the hot stove, not him testing out what ‘hot’ meant.
90. Rob Auld
April 11, 2006
9:03 PM
Boldness. Hmmm. The digital age has quite the positives. Never before have so many people been able to be in community from so many different places. Transaction speeds increasing productivity gains etc.
It also comes with its negatives. One of those negatives is a false sense of boldness. When blogging or emailing people get way too brave. It’s really easy to say all kinds of things hiding behind a computer screen. Because it’s all so impersonal.
Tim, I understand that large groups intimidate you. Coming home to make a really negative blog seems awfully low to me. I don’t know you and maybe I misjudged you. It’s too easy to come home and write it down and post it. Plus, I think we all have better filters when we’re face to face. I know I do. I have writ\ten horrible and nasty things to people over the years. Things I would never say in person.
Maybe your instinct of not saying anything was the one to go with? Maybe you owed it to those who put on the event to speak up during the event or forever hold your peace? I don’t know. I do know the digital age comes with it’s own set of problems. False boldness is one of them.
Rob
91. Randy Taylor
April 11, 2006
9:49 PM
I love bold prunes…
92. wfseube
April 11, 2006
10:29 PM
Rob Auld wrote: Maybe your instinct of not saying anything was the one to go with? Maybe you owed it to those who put on the event to speak up during the event or forever hold your peace?
I don’t know about the event that Tim & co. attended, but at the McLaren event I attended last year, you couldn’t get a question in edgewise, even if you WANTED to ask one.
And it’s no coincidence that I walked away from the McLaren talk I attended with precisely the same impression that Mr. Challies did from the one this week. McLaren’s sole goal in life seems to be as obscure as possible.
93. Stephen Morse
April 11, 2006
11:36 PM
I figure that if I have taken the time to read ALL of these comments… I had better write something down to add to the number count.
For the record I want to propose to all of you that I don’t love prunes but I do like dried apricots.
Tim… I have been trying to get people to visit my own blog for quite some time… I want to get free books to review… I guess I need to write a post where I malign a group of people who seem to reject the idea of propositional truth when it comes to things that they disagree with by writing a post full of propositional truths (why would they care anyway?).
It reminds me of the apologetics teacher who told the story of the atheist who said that there are no absolutes and was asked if that statement was an absolute.
Also… has anyone here read D.A. Carson’s book on the Emergent church? Is it worth reading? Also I would like some other resources on the EC.
How can I get a catchy title like Carla?
94. Brian Thornton
April 11, 2006
11:37 PM
“It’s really easy to say all kinds of things hiding behind a computer screen. Because it’s all so impersonal.”
-It’s no different than writing a letter…it just gets there faster. You could say the same thing about those impersonal letters in the Bible, couldn’t you??? Oh, wait…McLaren probably WOULD say that about those black letters from Paul!
“Coming home to make a really negative blog seems awfully low to me.”
-You mean…like what you are doing with these comments you posted here???
“I don’t know you and maybe I misjudged you.”
-Now, you’ve said something true.
“I do know the digital age comes with it’s own set of problems. False boldness is one of them.”
-Wow, now you’ve gone from “Maybe I misjudged you”, to making declaratory judgments…you sure are bold behind that keyboard there on your desk!
And Randy Taylor…go easy on the prunes, brother…
95. Mark Berry
April 12, 2006
4:25 AM
A few simple reflections from the UK…
1-As an Emerging Church type ;-) I both respect and empathise with Tim… I love Brian’s writing but have heard the same critique from a number of people (all types) about him live… I have yet to hear him so will reserve judgement. It was unfortunate that there was no prayer or refernce to scripture - that certainly does not reflect the EC as I know it we spend a lot of time in prayer and meditation .
2-Here in the UK the EC has been accused of talking about Paul too much… though to be fair it is generally Paul’s missional stories - Acts 17, 1 Thess2 etc. My expereince of the Evangelical Church (35 years!) is that it does not place enough importance on the teachings and actions of Jesus - it has become too focussed on monadic salvation to the detriment of a holistic Gospel - There is also a danger if we ignore the incarnational aspect of Christ we tacitally embrace a Kenotic Christology - which I and every ‘EC type’ would reject… can we really ignore what God did and said whilst on Earth? In some ways I have ta similar critique of the Evangelical reading of Paul… often the focus is on snippets of what he said about our own particular hang-ups and not enough on what the guy actually did!
3-Just a brief comment on the nature of scripture… of course the Bible is a narrative! It is the story of God and Creation - this makes it no less God’s word! It is when we refuse to see the whole narrative that people a) get all caught up in the contradictions I once had an Evangelical friend who got in a complete state over wether to eat pork or not because she could not see a narrative dimension to scripture) and movements and miss the character and mission of God and b) get sucked into grabbing scripture out of wider context to support their personal hermeneutic - proof texting etc. In every EC or Alt-worship gathering I have been to Scripture is very much the focus and every presentation I have heard from an EC leader (inc. those I give myself) starts with and is punctuated throughout with scripture. (all of scripture from the wisdom literarture to the historical narrative, the Prophetic visions to the Letters… not least the Gospels themselves)
96. ella
April 12, 2006
4:49 AM
gosh, and God’s love shines through these comments.
97. Rob Auld
April 12, 2006
9:29 AM
Brain,
I get the irony. The sad, sad irony.
Rob
98. Tim
April 12, 2006
9:27 PM
I spend two hours studying the Bible every day- actual reading, preparation for Bible study and preaching, pouring through what scholars have to say (new and old). On five different occasions I presented the story of Christ’s passion from memory (Mark, Luke, and John- Matthew was too long). Although I don’t always physically have the Bible with me, it is always with me! At any rate, when my namesake Tim suggests that Brian is not biblical or rooted in the Bible I find myself in vehement disagreement.
Examples:
1. Brian’s new book, “The Secret Message of Jesus,” probes deeply into Jesus’ kingdom message, especially rooting it in our Lord’s Jewish context. The book situates Jesus’ message, medium of communication, and strategy for delivering this message within the OT world and the Judaism of the day. Having said that, what Brian writes about is not the traditional, “biblical” faith many of us were taught growing up. Nevertheless, I find the entire book hitting the target in approachable language. A good biblical interpreation makes sense of the ENTIRE STORY of scritpure from Genesis through Revelation. Mclaren accomplishes this in TSMOJ.
2. In Brian’s book, “The Last Word and the Word after that” he deals with two interlocking issues- hell and the character of God. Once again, what Brian writes is deeply rooted in the Bible. Do a word study on Gehenna, Sheol and other words translated “hell” into English. Explore the OT, Jewish and first century background to these terms. You will find that Brian does a thorough deconstruction of “hell,” meaning he has pealed away the centuries of cultural and historical debris covering the original archealogical valuables below. Because the Christian faith was transmitted through Greek philosophy and Western culture we can misinterpret the original Jewish sense of the NT. Thus, our cultural understanding of hell is based more on Dante than on the Bible.
3. I worry about the danger of Tim’s approach that wants to be bold, firm, with all the answers. To me- that’s too concrete. What can grow from concrete? Not much. I would hope, over against that, for a faith that is “good soil”- not that it is blown everywhere by the winds [as emergent is sometimes caricatured], but can be plowed and fertilized and watered, in order to produce the growth that God desires for us and for all creation.
4. Please check out the 60 week Bible study from www.crossways.org [= Crossways] and the books written by Bishop Tom Wright. Neither of those are “liberal” or “revisionist”- yet they both demonstrate the true lack of biblical understanding of many so-called traditionalists or fundamentalists. Work through the actual biblical story: creation, crisis, calling, covenant, conquest, cycles, crown, conflict, collapse, confusion, confidence, Christ, church, consummation. When you work the Story you find that the Bible is not an owner’s manual or tech manual but something more and better. It helps you to see what God has been, is and will be up to- and invites us to become a part of that Story.
That is not to say that there are no propostional teachings in the Bible. Certainly they are there! BUT, they are set within the context of narrative. You cannot read Romans properly without understanding the narrative background. And yes, the narrative background becomes sharper after reading Romans.
I must say that I am profoundly saddened by Tim’s accuastion against Mclaren of a lack of boldness and biblical rootedness.
Humbly,
The other Timothy (or second Timothy)
99. david
April 12, 2006
10:01 PM
3. I worry about the danger of Tim’s approach that wants to be bold, firm, with all the answers. To me- that’s too concrete. What can grow from concrete? Not much. I would hope, over against that, for a faith that is “good soil”- not that it is blown everywhere by the winds [as emergent is sometimes caricatured], but can be plowed and fertilized and watered, in order to produce the growth that God desires for us and for all creation.
The question is not, “What can grow from concrete,” but “What can be built on concrete.”
Matthew 7:24-27 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
100. mikbry24
April 12, 2006
10:40 PM
Ooooooo……dueling illustrations! I love it………I think I like David’s better!
101. Flawed Cricket
April 13, 2006
1:14 AM
At some point, conversation becomes a subtle way of hiding. I grow weary of the empty, worldly chatter of the emergent conversation thereby allowing them to hide.
If we stop conversing with the emergent church they will probably slip into the abyss of irrrelevance, as most fads do, causing an attention-getting reaction of some kind which would unmask the uselessness of their talk because their actions would betray either what they say they believe or the truth.
Hang in there Tim. You da bold-shy-man.
C
PS - Your wife’s got your back! That speaks volumes!
102. Darryl
April 13, 2006
6:54 AM
I have to admit feeling pretty discouraged reading this thread at the polarization and lack of listening that seems evident. It almost seems that both sides are ready to thump the other and walk away feeling pretty good, which is a worst-case scenario for me in this “conversation” (sorry to use that term).
I don’t call myself emergent, but I agree with Don Carson who wrote, “If [emergents] manage this self-correction and worry less about who is or who is not emergent and rather more about learning simultaneously to be faithful to the Bible and effective in evangelizing the rising number of alienated biblical illiterates in our culture, they may end up preserving the gains of their movement while helping brothers and sisters who are more culturally conservative than they are learn to reconnect with the culture.”
To that I would add that emergents have something theological to contribute in terms of a holistic view of the Gospel and the mission of God (missio Dei).
So I was discouraged as someone you could call an emergent sympathizer (with reservations) until my Reformed theology kicked in, and I remembered the sovereignty of God, who is in control despite our bumbling efforts and our struggles to act as co-heirs. And I’m thankful for that.
103. billmelone
April 13, 2006
10:12 AM
Darryl, some emergents would say to Don that Reformed folk need to care less about who’s reformed and more about being faithful to the bible. The reality is that some reformed do listen and some don’t and some emergents listen and others don’t. So flawed cricket, i take issue with your generalization.
Plus, theres plenty substance to react to here—duelling illustrations, and both from Jesus. It strikes me that this is a both/and situation (duh if it was Jesus). Both analogies are not the rule but a simple attempt to describe a more complex reality.
But, heres where I differ—David seems to see the house like a theology, whereas I would say it needs to be seen as faith. Darryl on his blog said that we need to be bold in our faith, not our worldview—a distinction that applies to the song Tim originally mentioned. We must be bold before the throne of God but that doesn’t necessarily apply to our worldview as much.
If we see houses and soil as analogies for faith, I think that the analogies don’t conflict, but they do if we see them as a simple creedal theology thats not living.
104. david
April 13, 2006
10:51 AM
billmelone, you’ve got it wrong. My point is not whether the house is theology or faith (it is both, as the two can not be separated). My point is that God’s Word is an immovable rock that our theology and faith can be built on.
105. jeremy
April 13, 2006
1:32 PM
But then you’ve used the metaphor out of context. Jesus isn’t talking about the canon he is talking abut his specific teaching.
BILLMELONE is reminding us that if we take any metaphor too far it will beakdown, even Jesus’.
I posted these thoughts yesterday;
I have doubts and I have questions. I am resigned to the reality that I do not and will not have all of the answers, and yet… I have faith. That is the mystery of the Christian journey.
And so I will boldly proclaim that my life is hidden with Christ, that I am a citizen of a new kingdom, that in Christ alone I am made at-one with God through his atonement, but I won’t go around claiming ownership of God’s truth and mastery of every answer.
I may have more questions than answers but I have enough faith to walk me through it. For now that is enough.
106. david
April 13, 2006
3:27 PM
Jeremy, you’re making the very error Tim wrote about in his article - separating the “red words” from the black. Every word of Scripture is “God-breathed” (2Timothy 3:16), and has the same authority.
I’m pointing out that Jesus never presented his words as anything less than absolute and concrete, and that applies to all of Scripture. Scripture is a solid foundation upon which to build a strong house (theology/faith) that, like its foundation, does not move.
107. Darryl
April 13, 2006
6:22 PM
If you’re looking at Matthew 7, Jesus isn’t making a claim about all of Scripture. He’s making a claim for a particular sermon, which I suppose you can extrapolate to all of his teaching and ultimately to all of Scripture, but you have to make a few hermeneutical leaps to get there (which you can probably justify). And the person who builds on the foundation is not just someone who believes, but who receives and practices.
Same with Scripture as a foundation. Paul talks about apostles and prophets as being a foundation for the church but not Scripture. Again, you can make a hermeneutical leap.
108. billmelone
April 13, 2006
6:46 PM
David, faith is not the same as the way that we use the word theology. a living functional theology is the same as faith, but we often call other things theology too—like the elements of systematic theology that we can often let become mere words, mere line-items propositions. the form of a proposition in itself isn’t necessarily good because its not made alive in and of itself—in fact making things propositions often deadens them when you don’t acknowledge that the proposition has reduced the reality to a word picture and is not the reality itself. anyway, to me faith and theology are not separate but to me theology has often reduced things to propositions and faith is often the very act of acknowledging a much greater reality (God and his Spirit) outside ourselves. But I guess thats just my own understanding of how the words tend to be used these days.
109. Brian Thornton
April 13, 2006
7:23 PM
Same with Scripture as a foundation. Paul talks about apostles and prophets as being a foundation for the church but not Scripture. Again, you can make a hermeneutical leap.
I don’t think it is a leap…the foundation was/is the apostles and prophets, with Christ as the corner stone…and where did we get Scripture? From the apostles and prophets.
What other foundation do we have from the apostles and prophets other than what is written in Scripture?
110. Darryl
April 13, 2006
7:31 PM
Brian:
I think it’s a leap because Paul doesn’t say “the writings of the apostles and prophets” but the apostles and prophets themselves. And scholars debate what he means by the term prophets. For instance, “Because the prophets appear after the mention of the apostles and because they are linked together in 3:5 as recipients of revelation about the church, they are to be regarded not as Old Testament prophets, but as New Testament prophets.”
I think you can make a leap (or maybe step is a better term) to say that all we have is the writings of the apostles now, but I would still contend that it’s a step. But we’re probably getting slightly off topic now. ;)
111. david
April 13, 2006
8:52 PM
I haven’t said that theology and faith are the same thing. I said they are inseparable.
2Timothy 3:16 makes it clear that all Scripture is of equal authority. Psalm 138:2 states that God’s Word is equal to God himself. It’s no leap at all to make Scripture the foundation of theology, faith, and the church. Just as I expect my children to honor my words as the representation of me to them, so I do with God and his Word. I suppose you can now accuse me of “Bibliolotry,” as others have. My response to that is this: “Bibliolotry” is a fiction invented by those whose view of Scripture is too low. It just is not posible to hold Scripture too highly.
112. Darryl
April 13, 2006
8:58 PM
David:
They are inseparable, but for those who hold that Scripture is infallible, there is one crucial difference: We believe that our theology is not infallible.
In other words, Scripture may be infallible, but my interpretation of Scripture is not.
113. billmelone
April 14, 2006
10:46 AM
I’m looking back to the original issue I took with the analogies and I might be a little confused about it but heres what I see. First, Jeremy and Darryl took issue with David mentioning the analogies as working for our theology which I assume also takes issue with seeing the house and the soil as faith as being out of context too, since they said that Jesus is talking about Scripture. In reading Matthew 7 Jesus says that if anyone does not put his words into practice he is like the foolish man who built his house on the sand so to me its Jesus’ words of exhortation—the sermon not all of scripture. Which basically takes the issue to be an ethical one of living well in God.
Which actually gets to the second thing when I checked back and that was that it seemed that David was aligning himself with the mistake that it seemed Tim had made originally—that of confusing boldness in worldview with boldness in faith and the actual living out of that faith before God. Which relates to what is being said about Scripture—our view of Scripture/theology/worldview is fallible and just because the Bible is infallible, to say that theology or worldviews can be off isn’t to do dishonor to the bible.
sorry to ramble.
114. Driz
April 24, 2006
12:19 PM
Not sure what all the fuss is about. McLaren has been a great inspiration in bringing some of us whose faith had become luke-warm into a renewed place of boldness and Christian action. Do I agree with everything he says? Of course not. I think it’s healthy to ALWAYS question our faith. Remember, Jesus is the Perfect One in this conversation, not us. Jesus is the infallible and unique Son of God, yet we are fallible, error-prone, subject to infighting and presumption… we are fallen and saved by grace. McLaren has reminded me that it’s OK to be bold in simple faith in Christ, while remaining honest about my limitations in just about everything else. IOW, increasing our knowledge of theology does not necessarily make us more saved. Salvation (full and complete salvation) is so simple a child can comprehend it, and responde to it.
The early church followed the overwhelming passion and legacy of the man Christ, not the black words, not the red words. Frankly, if it goes much beyond “Christ and him crucified,” it’s open for discussion, and none of us has the final word. Maybe this is why McLaren is being intentionally vague.
115. abmo
April 25, 2006
10:15 AM
(Brian McLaren does not answer questions directly, if at all.) The thing is, when he answers “wrong”, you can always nail him. Luckily, in this case, you can nail him for being weak. And luckily for us, you are strong and able to show us the error of his ways. Who was the people who insisted that He(Jesus) answered all those careful questions?
(Brian did not pray),…….. Oh the horror!
(did not bring a Bible), ………so you have to able to read to be a Christian?????? That excludes half the earth’s population……. Luckily, you can read……..
and never quoted from Scripture.) I bet Jesus quoted the old testament all the time. Just scripture, scripture, scripture all the time. Bible studies, morning, noon and night. I can hear Jesus say stuff like….”The correct interpretation of,….chapter,…. verse,….., is…..” Or should He come to you for that?
What did He gave to His disciples? Did they know it?
Do you know?
I hope you find out “O Bold One”
116. mac
April 27, 2006
12:59 PM
Those of you weighing in on the early church’s use of scripture or lack thereof need to study history. All of Paul’s letters along with the other epistles were written to a Church without a written Gospel. These letters were guarded, copied and circulated among the other churches. These letters were designed to be read aloud, polemics and all, and were seen as authoritative because of Christ’s bestowing of power on the apostles. I won’t go into Apostolic Tradition but I will say this, there is truth to be preserved and the early Church along with the apostles laid down their lives to follow Christ and pass that reality on to us.
Second, the primitive church from the first century was primarily converted Jews. The Old Testament in the form of the Septuigent was present and used. Can the Epistles in the NT be seen as OT Midrash? I think there is an argument to be made for such a conclusion for now the Greatest Law, Christ himself, has been revealed and is placed into the witness of Old Testament salvation history thru the epistles.
For those of you who poo-poo the full use of scripture in favor of the narrative stories, please explain the Emaeus Road passage where Christ walked two disciples through the OT concerning Himself.
117. Darryl
April 27, 2006
4:13 PM
Mac:
“For those of you who poo-poo the full use of scripture in favor of the narrative stories, please explain the Emaeus Road passage where Christ walked two disciples through the OT concerning Himself.”
By seeing all of Scripture (including the OT) as The Story of God’s reign: creation, fall, redemption initiated, redemption accomplished, the mission of the church, and finally redemption accomplished.
118. john
May 4, 2006
7:51 AM
One thing that I admire about MacLaren is that he doesn’t come across as an “oracle”. Some believers feel they’ve got everything figured out. When people ask them questions, they’re dying to give the answers - because they’re so self-confident. “I’m right and you’re wrong - here’s why…”
MacLaren, on the other hand, seems to want people to seek for themselves. Rather than outlining a man-made “creed” and asking people to sign their names, he allows people to struggle through scripture and life and find their own way.
This is often foreign to the modernist, but it’s the way post-modern people operate. They will not be stuffed into your mold or my mold. They have us figured out. They have seen how many believers use religious ideals and even scripture for political, self-centered purposes. They see “religion” as a way to control behavior and exercise power over people more than a way to connect with God.
As for the “red letter” vs. “black letter”, I find myself struggling through this issue. You might say that you give equal weight to every passage of scripture - and that sounds really good - but I’ll bet you really don’t.
For example, do you cut your hair on the sides and in the front? If you do, you’re ignoring the biblical mandate of Leviticus - about a chapter over from the ban on homosexuality? If you’re a woman, do you stay home from church if you’re on your period? Technically, you’re unclean and shouldn’t try to go before God as it will gross Him out. Do you have a tattoo? See you in hell! How about the new testament? Does your wife wear a head covering in church? You don’t actually allow her to talk inside the sanctuary, do you? Do you roll out serpents and scorpions for your worship services - having the congregation tread across them to experience the power of the Spirit Paul speaks of? (I hear some churches actually do this, so if that’s you - please accept my apology in advance).
My point is that scripture is complex. It must be read in context because it was written in context. It requires research and objectivity and patience.
It’s important to remember that we do NOT worship the bible. We worship the God who inspired it.
119. Nathan
May 10, 2006
11:27 PM
You know what I find unfortunate?
Broad and sweeping over generalizations made about broad and diverse groups of people that are based on a few “fortunate” people having book deals.
120. abigail
March 15, 2007
12:45 PM
I would like to point out that we do have boldness to approach the throne of grace with confidence. Our boldness is in Christ. It is not a boldness in a right/wrong system…a boldness in the absolutes…it is a boldness in the faith we have in Christ…not in our judgements of others or their actions.
We live in a world that is hurting, hungry and emotionally torn. We are wasting our time arguing people’s interpretations. Look around you…I challenge you…look at the person you pass on the street…see the emptiness…look at the AIDS epidemic and the people without clean water in our world…stop trying to make a point and start doing something. We have so many Christians trying to defend their faith (meanwhile people are still hurting and dying from things that we can physically fix),
maybe it’s time that we start to live this faith…faith requires action…
In boldness, approach the throne of righteousness with faith to ask God how you can be his hands and feet here on this earth to help his creation…the people of his hands…