- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (04/09)
- Next Post »A La Carte (04/10)
Boldness Is Our Birthright
- 04/10/06
- 120
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.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I write books and blogs for fun while doing web design and consulting for a living. I worship and serve at 
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
Comments (120)
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
"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.
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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
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.
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?
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. ;^)
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.
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
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.
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.
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 .........
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."
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.
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.
For anyone curious about the chorus lyrics to "I Come By the Blood," they are:
I come by the blood, I come by the crossWhere your mercy flows from hands pierced for meFor I dare not stand on my righteousnessMy every hope rests on what Christ has doneAnd I come by the blood
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..... :)
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. ;-)
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.
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).
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.
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!
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.
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?
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 Scripture2. the value of certainty3. 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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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?
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)
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.
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.
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