- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostBook Review Updates
- Next Post »A La Carte (9/19)
The Gospel: Conventional vs. Emerging
- 09/18/07
- 70
Brian McLaren shares two gospels, one new and one old.
Those of us who have been keeping a wary eye on the Emerging Church know that to understand the movement we need to understand Brian McLaren. Though it is not quite fair to label him the movement’s leader, he certainly functions as its elder statesman and his writing seems to serve as a barometer for the movement. But anyone who has read his books will know just how difficult it is to pin down what he really believes. So often he is deliberately vague and mischievous and opaque, making suggestions but stopping short of actually saying, “This is what I believe.”
It was with some interest, then, that I read his understanding of “two views of Jesus’ good news” in a pre-release copy of his upcoming book Everything Must Change. In a chapter entitled “How Much More Ironic,” he lays out the gospel as he understands it, set against the gospel as traditionally understood by Protestants. In an endnote he defines this just a little bit further to say it represents a Calvinistic, evangelical Protestant, understanding of the good news.
So here, under four headings, is McLaren’s portrayal of what he calls the “conventional view” of Jesus’ good news:
The Human Situation: What is the Story We Find Ourselves In? God created the world as perfect, but because our primal ancestors, Adam and Eve, did not maintain the absolute perfection demanded by God, god has irrevocably determined that the entire universe and all it contains will be destroyed, and the souls of all human beings—expect for those specifically exempted—will be forever punished for their imperfection in hell.
Basic Questions: What Questions Did Jesus Come to Answer? Since everyone is doomed to hell, Jesus seeks to answer one or both of these questions: “How can individuals be saved from eternal punishment in hell and instead go to heaven after they die?” “How can God help individuals be happy and successful until they die?”
Jesus’ Message: How did Jesus Respond to the Crisis? Jesus says in essence, “If you want to be among those specifically qualified to escape being forever punished for your sins in hell, you must repent of your individual sins and believe that my Father punished me on the cross so he won’t have to punish you in hell. Only if you believe this will you go to heaven when the earth is destroyed and everyone else is banished to hell.” This is the good news.
Purpose of Jesus: Why is Jesus Important? Jesus came to solve the problem of “original sin,” meaning that he helps qualified individuals not to be sent to hell for their sin or imperfection. In a sense, Jesus saves these people from God, or more specifically, from the righteous wrath of God which sinful human beings deserve because they have not perfectly fulfilled God’s just expectations, expressed in God’s moral laws. This escape from punishment is not something they earn or achieve, but rather a free gift they receive as an expression of God’s grace and love. Those who receive it enjoy a personal relationship with God and seek to serve and obey God, which produces a happier life on earth and more rewards in heaven.
And here, now, is the “emerging view” of the good news under those same four headings:
The Human Situation: What is the Story We Find Ourselves In? God created the world as good, but human beings—as individuals and as groups—have rebelled against God and filled the world with evil and injustice. God wants to save humanity and heal it from its sickness, but humanity is hopelessly lost and confused, like sheep without a shepherd, wandering farther and farther into lostness and danger. Left to themselves, human beings will spiral downward into sickness and evil.
Basic Questions: What Questions Did Jesus Come to Answer? Since the human race is in such desperate trouble, Jesus seeks to answer this question: “What must be done about the mess we’re in?” The mess refers both to the general human condition and its specific outworking among his contemporaries living under domination by the Roman Empire and confused and conflicted as to what they should do to be liberated.
Jesus’ Message: How did Jesus Respond to the Crisis? Jesus says, in essence, “I have been sent by God with this good news—that God loves humanity, even in its lostness and sin. God graciously invites everyone and anyone to turn from his or her current path and follow a new way. Trust me and become my disciple, and you will be transformed, and you will participate in the transformation of the world, which is possible, beginning right now.” This is the good news.
Purpose of Jesus: Why is Jesus Important? Jesus came to become the savior of the world, meaning he came to save the earth and all it contains from its ongoing destruction because of human evil. Through his life and teaching, through his suffering, death, and resurrection, he inserted into human history a seed of grace, truth, and hope that can never be defeated. This seed will, against all opposition and odds, prevail over the evil and injustice of humanity and lead to the world’s ongoing transformation into the world God dreams of. All who find in Jesus God’s truth and hope discover the privilege of participating in his ongoing work of personal and global transformation and liberation from evil and injustice. As part of his transforming community, they experience liberation from the fear of death and condemnation. This is not something they earn or achieve, but rather a free gift they receive as an expression of God’s grace and love.
Following his summary of the two views of the good news, McLaren says his readers will recognize that the conventional view is commonly described as “orthodoxy” while any departure from it is heresy. While he affirms that the conventional view has a lot going for it, he says “more and more of us agree that for all its value, it does not adequately situate Jesus in his original context, but rather frames him in the context of religious debates within Western Christianity, especially debates in the sixteenth century.”
Before turning to a discussion of six unintended negative consequences of the conventional view, he makes this statement about conventional theology. “The basic shape of the story is similar despite [denominational or traditional] differences in details: earth is doomed, and souls are eternally damned unless they are specifically and individually saved, and the purpose of Jesus was to provide a way for at least a few individuals to escape the eternal conscious torment of everlasting damnation. Supporters of the conventional view can justify it with many questions from the Bible, and in so doing they bring much of value to light. But many other passages of the Bible are marginalized in the conventional view, and it has proven to entail many unintended negative consequences.”
This book is an attempt to answer two overarching questions: What are the biggest problems in the world? and What does Jesus say about these global problems? Those who know McLaren from his previous books will not be surprised to learn that “Jesus in the conventional view has little or nothing to say regarding the world’s global crises.” Clearly, then, an alternative is needed—an alternative that will allow Jesus to speak to the crises in the world.
But if Jesus did not come to proclaim that He had come to reconcile sinful men to a sinless God through his substitutionary atonement, what then was the central message of Jesus? Well, I haven’t quite finished the book yet, but this seems to be the best summary so far: “When Jesus proclaimed his central message of the kingdom of God, he was proclaiming not an esoteric religious concept but an alternative empire: ‘Don’t let your lives be framed by the narratives and counternarratives of the Roman empire,’ he was saying, ‘but situate yourselves in another story … the good news that God is king and we can live in relation to God and God’s love rather than Caesar and Caesar’s power.’” Another summary of Jesus’ message reads like this: “The time has come! Rethink everything! A radically new kind of empire is available—the empire of God has arrived! Believe this good news, and defect from all human imperial narratives, counternarratives, dual narratives, and withdrawal narratives. Open your minds and hearts like children to see things freshly in this new way, follow me and my words, and enter this new way of living.” Jesus took that message to the cross, an instrument of torture and cruelty that He used “to expose the cruelty and injustice of those in power and instill hope and confidence in the oppressed.”
So, according to McLaren, Protestant theology has had it wrong all along. We’ve missed the message of Jesus by reading sixteenth century presuppositions into the Bible. We’ve read the Bible with faulty lenses and have arrived at a flawed and false view of Jesus.
It seems clear to me that Everything Must Change is another step down the steep path that leads farther and farther away from biblical orthodoxy. McLaren seems to be fully aware of the path he is taking and of the crowd he is taking with him. I fear for them all. It seems increasingly clear to me that the new kind of Christian is starting to resemble no kind of Christian at all…
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (70)
Hiya vynette,
How’s the water in Jesus-as-metaphor lake? Or is it even real water?
Or is that just your interpretation?
Good Luck.
Hey Vynette - very well put and very astute.
As usual, I think Brian makes a lot of sense. I’d just wish he’d quit stealing my ideas. ;)
Anyway, thanks for the nice, concise synopsis. I think I will link to it - we have a nice discussion going on about Calvinism and I like Brian’s take on it.
A dios, folks.
I was wading through your comments, occasionally coming across something of value but usually encountering much of the same “I’m OK, you’re OK but they’re not OK” backslapping that you find on sites devoted to somewhat narrow theological perspectives.
But then I caught Hallies challenge. I am sure Tim has read Brian’s books (or at least one of them) and he is fairly even handed in his treatment of him. I don’t believe the rest of you read his books nor do I think many of you have paid close attention to what Tim has culled from Brian’s writing.
I was once a very conservative fundamentalist (never Calvinist but never Arminian either - I think we called it Methodism). But it became painfully obvious to me that what most of us call the church is far from resembling the body or bride of Christ. We have forsaken the Gospel for a multi-layered, overworked systematic theology full of formulas and doctrines. Far, far away from the simple, yet convicting, message of Jesus,many of us have forgotten it is supposed to be the Good News.
I now belong to the church that Brian founded 25 years ago, Cedar Ridge Community. He no longer is pastor as he devotes his time to writing and speaking. He is no transcendental meditating Zen Buddhist guru with a new age bent. He is a God loving and God fearing man who has a passion for Jesus and his ministry.
I don’t agree with everything he says but I respect our disagreements. I respect that McLaren (though he occasionally slips up) generally shows more respect for other’s differing opinions than most have of his.
I really think that more time should be spent studying Jesus’ example for how we should live than trying to figure out what modern take we should have on what certain post medieval translations of Paul’s Greek letters literally meant to a classically trained cleric during the Reformation. It is so easy to slip into legalism as Jesus often reminded the Pharisees.
Let’s work out our own salvation with fear and trembling while exhorting the corporate church to heed the admonishments of the prophets. Meanwhile let’s rejoice in our salvation and share this good news with others, but gently.
Hiya Christian,
Let me make sure I understand. Us “backslappers” are narrow, and our apparent narrowness must have prevented us from actually reading McLaren, and that is why you would presume something like that? Is it possible that we actually have read him and actually disagree with what he writes? Is it possible that what he writes is actually what he believes? Is it possible that you would just make something up about our narrow self-imposed ignorance so that you could just stick it to a broad rage of individuals which you see as a fundamentalist monolith and change the subject? Is it possible that you, from your own particular narrowness, have chosen to falsely accuse and impugn that with which you disagree? Why is it that you don’t respect the disgreements of those who you perceive as narrow? How is that not narrow? And so what if it is? It really seems as though you yourself chose to participate in the OK-OK-not OK mutual admiration society. which you find so unfortunate in those with whom you disagree.
Look, if the above quote from Brian is accurate, and none of us (even the slappers and slappees) have any reason to think it isn’t, then Brian finally feels comfortable saying that which he has been hinting at for a long time, that is, as far as he is concerned the gospel as outlined in 1 Corinthians 15 is ancillary to the concerns of this world, or in other words, the most important thing about the cross was some statement of self-sacrifice for some cause and whatever actually happened there is somewhat significant but not as important as what we need to do now to be nice and helpful and not narrow.
Yes we need to be nice, but there is more there that that, namely, buckets and buckets about false teaching. And that is false teaching.
Unless that is a metaphor, too. Then forget I said anything.
You’re right Jason. I could’ve been wrong. But I didn’t say that none of you read his books, I suggested that most of you did not and perhaps chose to pass judgment on him based upon comments that were not studied too carefully. If this does not describe you then I am sorry.
Even Tim says said that he had not yet finished the book prior to this posting and that is not necessarily the best place to start off with a review but I doubt that his opinion would change to0 much. I would guess that most of you folks have already demonized Brian (just as I was ‘pretending’ to demonize Calvin)
By talking isolated passages from any book and ask them to stand alone we perhaps miss the main point of the author. You know, proof texting. Often inaccurate, dissatisfying at best and quite dangerous as when we do it with the Bible.
Just as many fundamentalists seem to fear people like Brian because they believe that people may to follow him and his ideas as opposed to Jesus, I think many others will share the same feelings about Luther, Calvin,Swingli, Armenius, Scofield etc etc. I would even suggest some of them were false teachers. Christ said that the world will know us for our love, not our doctrine.
So, you read the book? What did you think?
Christian,Let me cast my vote as someone who has read McLaren’s writing. Not all of it, but a fair chunk I think.My previous comment stands. Having read his books and read the review of this latest one he cannot believe what he says he believes and still call himself a Christian.By the way, I find it interesting that your biggest problem seems to be that people are willing to critique him and identify his apparent beliefs as heresy, but you don’t make any attempt to explain how we’ve misunderstoond him and that he really is on the straight and narrow.It seems to me that Brian’s biggest strength and weakness is that he seems, by all accounts, to be a genuinely nice guy. While he and others like Ghandi, Mother Theresa and Princess Diana may try and parlay that into being considered Christian (by many) it’s not enough, in fact it has no bearing whatever. Examine his teaching in light of the whole Bible, not in the light of his personality.
You said we should rejoice in our salvation and continue to deliver the gospel, gently. Unfortunately Brian’s books show no signs that he has a salvation in which to rejoice and the message he is spreading is in no way, the gospel
And so we call him out.
Hiya Christian,
Thanks for at least the attempt at a clarification, although writing “I don’t think” and “I don’t believe” and then say that those were just suggestions smells a bit of revisionism. But I appreciate it, anyway.
Recently I was having a discussion with someone who felt that I needed to read every book written by a certain contemporary theological lightning rod in order to “understand” him. Having read about 1,100 pages of the individual was not enough. And I feel that so much of the debate surrounding the “theo”-logical variations within strands of emerging, -ent, -inionism involves a similar angle: having listened to sermons or lectures, having read large sections of books, but not having read them cover to cover or not reading the postscript or the preface renders a person unqualified to comment on that which they have heard and read. Perhaps you have read the Institutes cover to cover, but if you haven’t are you unable to critique Calvin based on what you have read? I don’t think so.
So per your question, as to whether or not I have read the book, correct me if I’m wrong but the book isn’t out yet, right? And again, do I need to read further if I have read most of “the story we find ourselves in”, “A New kind of Christian” and as much of “A Generous Orthodoxy” as I could stomach (before I felt its greatest usefulness would be to light my charcoal grill)? overandoverandover throughout these works are “Oh, sure, I think that’s important, BUT” and then proceeding to say what he really thinks is important. The above quote is only reflective of what I think is his growing honesty and confidence in saying what he really believes, and it fits in nicely with his less forthright compositions which preceded this one.
I also agree that prooftexting is unfortunate, as with the context-free use of Christ’s citation of Psalm 82:6 in vynette’s last submission. Or quoting 1 John 4:8 in obscurance of literally hundreds of other passages dealing with the eternal perils of false teaching. I’ve never understood how so many people who say God is Love are perfectly happy to tolerate and even accept false teaching. Is it loving to lie to people about who God has said he is? And, I, if I may, “suggest” that your prooftexting comment was perhaps directed toward my citation of 1 Cor 15 as the gospel. At the end of a letter dealing with disunity in matters of factionalism and antinomianism and disregard for the well being of others, Paul cites that which so many today feel to be the divisive aspect of Christianity. Think about it. Paul didn’t think that saying what was true about who Christ is and what he did would lead to any disunity that probably wasn’t already there. What is in the passage is that around which those who were disunified were to unify.
And to teach something different than that is not loving.
Actually, in this situation, you could dispel our errors by just telling us what you think about above quote, and/or, if it is out of context then how it does not reflect McLaren’s consistent teaching. I mean that sincerely, since you worship in close proximity to him and what he has built, your take on the above quote would be very helpful.
Thanks again for your reply.
Ah Daryl, touche’. But to be sure, you’ve exaggerated my point. I was addressing the general tone of this thread, not each and every participant. A little bit too much throwing around words like ‘apostasy’. But, that speaks to my tastes probably more than anything. But I do think deciding for yourself who is Christian and who is not (don’t you really mean who is ‘saved’ and who is not?) is a bit much for anyone.
It is rhetoric like this that encourages some people to cease identifying with “Christians” even if they loyally follow Christ. To declare that one has accepted Jesus as savior and lord is meaningless if one does not follow his example in how he deals with others. And deciding that slavish devotion to (what one believes is) the truth, without respect and compassion for those who would hear this truth is not love. One can be so loyal to the letter that one can entirely quench the spirit of what has been written. I think Paul said something like that.
Sure Daryl. Which quote?
Wow. Christian, you really wanna have your rhetorical cake and eat it, too.
You come here with your own chip on or near your shoulder, making broad prejudicial remarks and somebody gives you attitude and you say, “yer not nice, people don’t like Jesus cuz yer not nice” Wow.
But it’s also a slick way of changing the subject. You still said anything about the above quote from McLaren, other than “you don’t get it”.
Tell us how you feel about the above quote.
Hiya Vynette,
Context free, you bet.
Just four passages before Christ’s quote of Psalm 82:6 Christ finishes up a pericope in which he makes us considerably subordinate. He refers to us as sheep over and over. So was Christ anointed into sheepship as well? Asserting that we are sons of God in the sense you are asserting is a super-duper word-thing fallacy.
As well in the last passage in that pericope Jesus says that He and the Father are one. Now it doesn’t take very long anywhere in the Bible to understand that God does not give his glory to another, buuuut see John 17:1-5. Now that is a clear statement. Before creation, Jesus was being glorified in the presence of the Father. Hmmm. And then we view thie quote from you:
“The crucial difference between Jesus and other ‘sons’ was that Jesus was ‘anointed’ with plenipotentiary powers to speak and to act with full authority in the name of God.”
Did Jesus become one with the Father before or after this anointing? When do I get to be one with the Father, or does my oneness not have the same potentiality? All authority in heaven and earth? The sounds like totipotency to me. When was that anointing? I need help with my bills and and even oligapotency (I made that up) might come in handy.
An ostentatious display of context freeness in prooftexting.
Christian,
Which quote? I don’t get it. When Brian denies the gospel and presents a “kingdom now” gospel his behaviou means nothing. We are Christians because we believe, not because we act. Acting is important, yes, but if the belief is wrong, more specifically, if the right belief is rejected, we all have a responsibility to identify those who are not Christians, especially when they claim to be teachers of a “new way” or “secret message” at the expense of the true gospel.
Christian,
One last point. It is true that we must obey the Spirit of the gospel but tell me this, in obeying the Spirit do we reject the letter (as McLaren has done}?
Where are you Tim?To have someone who is either new age or Jehovah’s Witness spouting their false doctrine on a reformed site without being challenged by someone trained in theology is a shame!To deny the trinity - to actually imply that the new testament writers did not teach or believe that Jesus is God—makes me wonder what bible they are reading.How can someone come into the 21st century and say they now have some new understanding or interpretation of what the biblical writers meant?Do words mean anything? Does John chapter one mean anything when it says” In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. And the word became flesh and dwelt among us.”Do the words of Philippians chapter two mean anything other than the deity of Christ?Does Jesus correct Thomas when Thomas says to Him “my Lord and my God”? John 20:28I will only use only one other of many passages-Titus 2:13” Waiting for the blessed hope, the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” To say that the new testament writers did not believe that Jesus was and is God is dishonest.What proof have these people that the church for 2000 years has not understood the nature of the person of Christ?How do they come up with a statement that “The Hebrew movement begun by Jesus and the Apostles bears no resemblance at all to the creeds of orthodox Christianity”.I may be a layperson but I know better than that!This is just another vicious attack on the clarity of scripture and the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ!
Bravo, Victoria
(closed caption: backslapping)
May I also add this- If you get it wrong on the person and work of Christ, you also get it wrong on the doctrine of salvation.If you get it wrong on the doctrine of salvation, your soul is at great peril!Study the Granville Sharp rule and you will understand that the N.T. writers knew and wrote definitely of the deity of Christ.This is one of those “hills to die on” of the Christian faith- Jesus Christ is God. I am commenting on the post above that states this:
“It can be demonstrated from the New Testament that its authors did not believe or teach that Jesus was ‘divine’ or equal to God in any way except as it pleased God to make him so. That means for instance no Trinity, no Miraculous Incarnation. There was, and still is, a fundamental misunderstanding of the Hebrew modes of thinking and expression and this lack of knowledge on the part of the post-apostolic Graeco-Roman fathers produced the doctrines of orthodox Christianity.”
How in the world can such a statement be demonstrated from the New Testament? What bible is being read?Sounds like Jehovah’s Witness or New Age or New Perspective.
hi all
I am writing a dissertation on the emerging/ent chuch at the moment, specifically what it/they say is the problem with the human condition, and how it could affect youth work (and the salvation of young souls). I’m only an undergrad, and i’m not an expert at all, but in the last few weeks I have read 6 or 7 of Mr McLaren’s books, along with some other emerging stuff. Thank you, Challies for your review of the new one, which I have on order, and seems as though it will answer my main question!
Having read so much McLaren so recently, I feel full of sadness for him. “A New Kind of Christian” portrays a pastor who is having real doubts being undermined by someone who has postmodernity all sorted out. McLaren says that Daniel, the fictional pastor, is not to be identified with him, but I can’t help but feel that Mr McLaren has found himself at some point floundering in the faith and has not been helped out at a crucial point which has led him to think and write what he now does.
I think what has struck me most in reading is the absence of consequence of individuals’ sin. When the “sinners” are corporate religion or the Roman empire or something else big and mighty, the consequence of their sin is lots of opressed and marginalised people. But McLaren manages to ignore the clear biblical teaching on the individual consequence of individual rebellion against our Creator. For example, Adam and Eve aren’t shut out of the garden, it just seems that God and humanity drift apart. This of course leaves humanity to be able to just drift back to God when they so choose, which is what most of McLaren’s writings portray. It’s as if Jesus has turned up to describe this kingdom, this wonderful kingdom which we look forward to with hope and certainty, and just allowed people who want to, to just turn up, with no cost. Of course, to me, there has been no cost in the sense of buying my way in. Jesus paid that cost by taking the punishment of death promised in Genesis 2 for me. But there is nothing i can do to just walk back into the kingdom any time i choose. No amount of humility, justice and mercy, and reanalysis of my life (characteristics of McLaren’s writings) will allow me to just come back to God. It all hangs on Jesus paying my way in. In his bible overview in “a search for what is real” (i think), at no point is there any death or punishment - none in genesis 3, no sacrificial system with its bloodshed, no divide in Solomon’s kingdom because of his sinfulness, nothing.
I can understand that Mr McLaren wants there to be a God who doesn’t punish, because we don’t like punishment - that’s the whole point of the gospel. We don’t like what God say and we turn away from Him and His words - including the promise that our sin has eternal consequences - what did the serpent say? “you will not surely die…” Adam and Eve doubted God’s word then, and Brian McLaren stands in a long line of people (all who have ever existed, bar our wonderful Lord Jesus Christ), who want to deny a negative consequence of our sin.
People who oppose the view that Jesus took our punishment on the cross often say that this would make God evil, a child abuser or such like. But I see it as the greatest love that God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, could show to me. Don’t forget that Jesus the Son willingly took the wrath, and the Father did something which seems so awful because he “so loved the world”. That love, that took God’s wrath from me, totally undeserved, is so awesomely bigger than the love that Brian McLaren evidently feels from God.
The emergent theology is a sad business indeed.
Jason, you might want to brush that beam off your shirt before you pay too much attention to the chip on mine. Why so…strident?
Daryl; Yeah. Again, which quote? There are several in Tim’s piece. I don’t know which one you want a response for.
Brian’s book is not about a secret message at all. (Swooosh!) He is cleverly playing off of all the cultural hype concerning Da Vinci codes and Knight’s Templar. The title is designed to get attention and sell more books. That being said, I think that many people are unaware of this ‘secret’; that Jesus life, death and resurrection is not all about getting your ticket stamped before boarding the ferry to heaven. It is about serving him here and now. By feeding his sheep (someone earlier was hung up that metaphor), feeding him when he is hungry, clothing him when he is naked and visiting him in prison. It is not all about singing hymns, tithing, modest clothing, swearing, sex and slogans. But you wouldn’t know that by what the Church is most concerned about.
Brian believes in God the Father, Jesus his Son, our Lord and Savior as well as the Holy Spirit. I know this because I have heard him say it, numerously.He is not Protestant, Anglican or Roman Catholic. He tries to respect Protestants, Anglicans and Roman Catholics. He understands that we have commonality in Jesus.
Doctrines about the Eucharist, Baptism, Heaven, Hell, Adam and Eve, the Flood, Election- these are not at the heart of Christ’s church. It is Jesus’ sacrifice and the forgiveness of sin - God’s forgiveness of our wrongs and our forgiveness of others. The fact that he loves us all and welcomes all of us into the kingdom. Not just those with theology degrees.
Your are concentrating so very hard on the bark you don’t even see that the trees in your forest are dying. They are too stiff and not being able to bend they will eventually break.
OK, let’s keep this on track. I’ve deleted several inappropriate comments.
Furthermore, I’m going to restrict comments to those who actually believe the Bible is the Word of God. Comments denying foundational truths such as the Trinity and the deity of Christ will be deleted.
Hiya Christian,
Yah, I’m not sure why you thought the yer-not-nice thing would work the second time. And how is my pointing out your speck (which speck? Your prejudicial remarks?)different than your first entry toward nearly everyone who had posted on this blog? You make it easy to be strident when you keep making a break for the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do escape hatch.
Perhaps trying to have your speck and not see it, too.
And you’re still not really talking about the quote.
Nice metaphor, by the way. Are the sheep in Ezekiel 34 real sheep, if that’s the food that you are talking about? Or am I hung up? Or are we just too busy eating bark? Oops the metaphor crossed the centerline….
How many specific historical references to the Old Testament does Christ make in the gospels? Are these things really not central? It really seems that He thought that they were. Jesus eating bark. Hmmm. How much did Christ say specifically about those things that you bypass as doctrine? Were those comparatively throw away remarks?
Even if yer a red-letter Christian, you still gotta include all the red-letters.
When is Christian leadership going quit dancing around and sound the alarm warning against the false teaching of Brian McLaren and this Emergent garbage? Just mark them for what they are and tell everyone to avoid them. Poison is marked as such, POISON. No where in the bible does it tell us to follow false teachers.
My heart aches. Read the 25 verses of Jude and ask yourselves if this is not today. I fear for today’s so-called”evangelical” church. I fear for our country. How many kids today are falling for this Emergent New (Age) Spirituality?
I just finished reading Roger Oakland’s book, Faith Undone. Excellent! He outlines and exposes the Emergent church with truth and love.
Go out and share the true gospel of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. Be in His word… not in a book by McLaren!