Jesus, the Poor, & Poverty

Two successive articles in yesterday's and today's The Orange County Register caught my attention. On January 3, 2006, Jay Ambrose wrote a column entitled, "Hate the rich, hurt the poor" (Local, Opinion, p. 7). Apparently in a previous column Ambrose had put the idea forward that "…it seemed to me a misreading of the New Testament to suppose Jesus favored socialism, as some contend." What was Ambrose's reasoning in that previous article? He tells us: "I certainly urged that people care for the poor, I said, adding that it struck me as ludicrous to suppose he was also advocating an economic system that actually made people poorer."

He goes on to say that a woman-with a theological degree no less-emailed him saying that he must be rich. Obviously, they didn't teach logic where this woman got her theological degree. Why should someone jump to the conclusion that the author must be rich simply because he's stating his position? There are a number of people who are not "rich" who hold to the same position. Of course, there are also reasons why this woman wrote what she did. You can, for example, hold that Jesus was a quasi-socialist because you attended a liberal theological seminary that taught that in its "Ethics of Jesus" course. Such a conclusion could be the result of faulty exegesis. It could be that the woman is a left-wing Democrat, Greenie, or Loopy that despises Bush and his tax cuts for the rich.

What we need to look at, however, are just a few of the distortions that some Americans have about the rich. Unfortunately, a portion of the hatred is derived from the endless demagoguery that one hears on the radio or watches on TV. There are, no doubt, rich people who are greedy and despicable people, but that can't be the real reason for disliking them because poor people can also be greedy and despicable. Another way of looking at the "rich" is that they got where they are either by inheriting a ton of money (Paris Hilton), bilking others through scams, or getting rich off of insider stock trading (former DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe).

Continue reading "The Poor and Poverty (I): A Christian Response"

I just wanted to take a moment today and wish all challies.com readers, a very Merry Christmas.

God bless you and your families.

Fred Butler of Hip and Thigh wrote an article last week called Why exactly is it considered “Groundbreaking?” in which he discussed the media reaction to a new movie called Brokeback Mountain, the story of two homosexual cowboys. Fred writes,

I was driving in town the other day when my eye caught a bus stop kiosk with a poster of Brokeback Mountain and at the top was a critic review stating: Groundbreaking... I thought, "ground breaking? What's so ground breaking about another gay themed movie?" Ground breaking is a word we use for something that has not been done before that sets a standard. Disney's Steamboat Willie is ground breaking. Star Wars, for example, was a ground breaking film with its special effects, and Jurassic Park was ground breaking for the CGI technology. However, the umpteenth gay themed film is not ground breaking. full article

Fred is right. Homosexual themes in movies are now common. We see yet another movie about homosexuality and those of us who are not yet calloused toward them are disgusted and have no interest in seeing them. Not too many years ago, the majority of Americans would have shared our disgust. Now they are apathetic, at best.

Even Christians are becoming desensitized to the normalization of sodomy (it sounds worse when it is called what it is, doesn’t it?). How has this happened? Well, Hollywood didn’t go directly from Old Yeller to flaunting perversion in our faces. They have fed us their morality piecemeal, and we have accepted it. They gave us implicit fornication, and we overlooked it. Then they gave us explicit fornication, and we thought, “As long as it’s under the covers or behind closed doors, it’s not so bad.” Now we are faced with fornication in plain sight on the screen, with careful camera angles being their only salvation from an X rating.

Now the same path is being traveled in the normalization of sodomy. First, we laughed at men who appeared a bit effeminate in comedy situations. Then they began slipping homosexual characters in minor roles into otherwise harmless movies, again often used with comedic effect. I don’t see a lot of movies, but a few come to mind – Remember the Titans, Sweet Home Alabama, Blast from the Past – you can probably think of a few yourself. These are movies that are basically good, clean entertainment, but have a homosexual character that could just as well have been heterosexual. There is no actual sodomy implied, so we overlook it. Where can we expect this to lead?

I am not saying that movies would be cleaner if Christians stayed off of the slippery slope that Hollywood has created. I am saying that those who have accepted homosexual characters in nonsexual roles should not be shocked to see filmmakers becoming increasingly brazen in their promotion of homosexuality. If you can laugh at a homosexual’s effeminate gestures, you might as well be entertained by explicit sodomy. To do otherwise is inconsistent.

Chapter 7—Why I am Post/Protestant (II)

Why Can't We All Just Get Along?

In our last issue, we began by examining the seventh chapter of Brian McLaren's book, A Generous Orthodoxy, entitled "Why I Am Post/Protestant." At the conclusion of that issue I pointed out three areas where McLaren was displeased with the results of the Reformation. By way of quick review, here are the points again:

First, "After protesting Catholic excesses, Protestants started protesting each other."[1]

Second, "This protest frenzy created a kind of market economy for religion, where religion was commodified."[2]

Finally, "Protestants have paid more attention to the Bible than any other group, but sadly, much of their Bible study was undertaken to fuel their efforts to prove themselves right and others wrong (and therefore worthy of protest)."[3]

Protestants Protesting Each Other

McLaren gives the distinct impression that Protestants simply could not be satisfied with a modicum of success so that they began acting like a dysfunctional family, squabbling among themselves. In the realm of possibility I suppose that that is one scenario. It is not the correct one-by a long shot-but it is one. It seems that McLaren is taking this opportunity to whine at the Reformation's expense. He gives the impression that there really wasn't much worthy of discernment and discrimination after we extricated ourselves from those pesky indulgences and that nasty transubstantiation thing. Wrong-very wrong.

Thankfully, the Reformers drew some very clear lines on some very important matters; thankfully theologians throughout the centuries have continued to do that. Were the arguments surrounding the Lord's Supper among the Roman Catholics, Zwinglians, Lutherans, Baptists, and Reformed both necessary and helpful? Yes they were. Were the debates between Arminius, Episcopius, the Remonstrants and the Reformed indispensable discussions? Yes they were.

Continue reading "A Generous Orthodoxy or a Dangerous Heterodoxy?"

I've written about this before here, but due to the time of year, I think it's a good time to bring this up again.

Sick kids in church...

My husband Kevin and I strongly believe that if your kid is sick, and potentially contagious with a cold or flu, they ought to stay home from church or mid-week kid's programs. Of course that means one of the parents has to stay home too, and 99.99% of the time that means me, in our house.

This family "policy" we have wasn't agreed on lightly. None of us enjoy staying home from church, and none of us want to. But weighing the pros and cons of the situation, it's a rather selfish thing to do to simply medicate up, and drag your kids off to church so that you can be there. All the while, they (or you) are spreading your virus to everyone else there, so that others can begin suffering in a couple of days and miss church next week.

Since our son Samuel burnt his foot 3 months ago, for one reason or another I have only been to a Sunday service once. He wasn't able to go for several weeks due to that, but then the fall colds started. It really really bothers me, but there is very little I can do about it. We can only attend every other week as it is, with Kev's work schedule, and it seems that it's always the Sunday that we can go, that something happens where I end up staying home with a sick kid, or being sick myself. With 5 kids in this house, it's almost as if the viruses we get just seem to rotate and someone is always sick, from about mid-September until March. It was really bad last year, and I think I went 3-4 months at one point without ever being at church. It made me feel a little better knowing that we weren't the only family dealing with it though.

Problem is, parents who DON'T keep their sick kids at home.

Here's a very real scenario that plays out in our house all winter long:

Kev and most of the kids go to church on Sunday. I stay home with a sick kid. Someone else has taken their sick kid to church, and 2 of mine catch it. Of course we don't know that they've caught it, but by Tuesday or Wednesday morning sometime they're coughing or sneezing, runny noses and body aches. A week goes by, and we miss the next Sunday anyway because Kev's 45 miles away at work, with the van. Week 2 begins with 2 of the kids nearly over their virus, with 2 more of them (and me, and Kev too) just coming down with it. By the next Sunday, when we all could have gone to church, one or more of us is staying home with a sick kid, because some other parent took their sick kid to church.

Now I realize that sometimes your kids are contagious and you (and them) don't even realize they have anything yet, so obviously there's a no fault clause there. But what about the parents who KNOW their kids are sick, and medicate them and take them to church? Do they really think that the other kids in church aren't going to get it? Do they realize that those kids are going to go home and spread it around their families? Do they think about these things at all, or is being in church more imporatant to them than any of that?

Being in church for me, is a wonderful thing. I love to be among the saints, hearing the word preached, worshipping together, and praying together. I'm getting weepy-eyed just writing this, because I haven't been able to go for so long. I long to be there, but I don't long to be there so much I will drag along a sick kid to make you and your family sick, later in the week. IT'S NOT FAIR to you, and it's not fair to me, or my kids.

Because we homeschool, and because we live in the country (not walking distance to any friends homes), being in church on Sunday and Wednesday is the highlight of our week, for worship, and for social gatherings of likeminded believers. We don't get to go as a whole family, for most of the winter because other families don't think about this sort of thing when they take their sick kids to church. The kids are also going to miss the annual Christmas concert this year, for this very reason. They're not happy about it, and neither are we.

Kev and I both spoke to our pastor last winter about this and he wholeheartedly agreed. At least once that I know of he mentioned it from the pulpit during bulletin announcements. I've brought this up with other believers, and other pastors, and everyone seems to agree that if your kids are sick, STAY HOME. Treat the virus at home, so that everyone (not just your family, but other families too) can worship together next Sunday.

I wish everyone would do this. I wish everyone would be more mindful of those families that aren't coming during the winter months, and maybe ask themselves why.

Chapter 7-Why I am Post/Protestant

What's in a Name?

Brian McLaren and the rest of the ECM tribe are part and parcel of what David Wells calls "The New Disablers."[1] What is that exactly? It's a cadre of modern, often self-styled, pastors that lead those that follow them into "a new order of sacred fools."[2] In his search to carve out a niche for himself, the modern pastor all to frequently seeks what is ostensibly "cutting edge" or "creative" rather than making use of the ordinary means of grace that God has provided.[3]

One of the most egregious errors of "hip" pastors like McLaren, Bell, and others is that as pastors they co-opt theology and thereby remove it from the soul of the Church.[4] No all, however, bow their knees to the Baal of modern or postmodern thought. Thoughtful-not trendy-pastors are able to see and see through the pitfalls of both modernity and postmodernity and understand how pluralism and secularism work without capitulating to it. Wells correctly states, "Those who manage to do so go on to preach with passion the truth of God's Word, reflecting on that truth and seeking out he points at which it intersects with modern life. There they uncover a wisdom that will not be coopted by the self movement, a wisdom centered instead in the objectivity of God's truth and in the transcendent God to whom it points."[5]

Wells hits on an indispensable point with this observation: the centrality of preaching Christ. What is most needed is faithful pastors preaching the Word of God to God's people. Preaching, according to Scripture, focuses on the Lord God Almighty and is not dialogical, but proclamation. It is the "foolishness" of preaching Christ and him crucified. It does not skirt around unpleasant words like sin, rebellion, transgression, or iniquity. At the same time, it does not leave people hopeless, but once the pinch of the Law of God is felt in their lives speaks in glowing terms of God's graciousness to repentant sinners.

Continue reading "A Generous Orthodoxy or a Dangerous Heterodoxy?"

Adam Omelianchuk (aka Ochuk) asked if I would be interested in posting the following article in the Community Blog. I found it sufficiently interesting and controversial that I thought I would. I hope you enjoy it as I did.

Stunning. Breath-taking. Astonishing. Those are the words that ran through my mind as I reviewed the so-called "Thanksgiving Blog War" over at a blog dedicated to cataloging the "Big Brouhaha." While I was not unaware of the conflict between the centuri0n (Frank Turk) and the iMonk (Michael Spencer), and voiced my dissent a few times I had no idea that it would grow into such an odious soar on the Calvinist blogosphere. I can now honestly say I am thankful I have been sick the last 4 days bedridden with a cold.

I missed out on absolutely nothing.

Now when I say "Calvinist blogosphere" I mean that that is what I find myself reluctantly having a foot in. To me, the Calvinist blogosphere is made up of what is endorsed by Tim Challies, Phil Johnson, Modergism.com and Adrian Warnock. I can't say I am a "big name" in this particular sector of the world wide web, but I can't say I'm a big name anywhere. Period. However, before he was big, Tim Challies and I exchanged some friendly links and I found my self on his blog roll, which he now calls the "top ten." Those were the days of the "blogswaps" and if you don't know what those were you haven't been reading Challies that long.

I cannot stress enough how honored I feel that Tim considers me one of the "top ten" nor can I stress enough how gracious it is. Seeing how I have at times been sympathetic to such hot button issues like the Emerging Church, the Discerning Reader, the TNIV, an egalitarian view of women's roles, and the treatment of Open Theists as genuine Christians I still sometimes wonder why he didn't "de-link" me long ago. Especially when I was part of the nefarious Boar's Head Tavern.

Yes it's true, I barked few words and scribbled few screeds there in the jest of tavern-style pugnacity. I was belligerent. I was rude. I was temperamental. And it was a lot of fun, but like most of my bar experiences it also wasn't "edifying." Edifying is an overused and abused Christian word, so let me expound on what I mean.

A while back I noticed that my Christian life was filled with a lot of things, except Christ. Don't misunderstand me: soteriologically he is mine and I am his-by faith I have been united to his life that he now lives at the right hand of God. However, that didn't mean I was communing with him. He was there, but on the back-burner of my life. Things like debating the aforementioned "burning theological issues" (none of which are "burning" or "theological" before an unbelieving world that killed that God-forsaken carpenter on a hill called Calvary) became the most important part of my life. A long story short, on the advice of my pastor I decided to lay down all the books I was reading and focus on developing a prayer life and reading the Word as if it were written to me (crazy thought I know!). I agreed that this was the best course of action, and not soon after following through, God "gave me" these verses:

Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some. But God's firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: "The Lord knows those who are his," and, "Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity."

Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honorable use, some for dishonorable. Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work.

So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will. (2 Timothy 2:14-26).

I could go on telling you how much I identify with the iMonk's confessional writing and think that Frank Turk and the boys over at FIDE-O (for some reason they consider me one of "dog pound." Cool.) are all wet, but these words from Paul haunt me. The phrases about "quarreling over words" that "ruin hearers," and being "kind to everyone" having "nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies" figuratively tap me on the shoulder as I seethe with rage as hammer out yet another sardonic post of contemptuous drivel.

And this is the problem with "fundamentalism."

To be sure fundamentalism, at least in the historic sense, is actually a fascinating theological movement that emerged in the early part of the twentieth century. It's interesting, because was a unifying movement that united Baptists and padeo-baptists, Calvinists and Arminians, and even allowed women to preach (go figure)! Why? Because it was committed to the Bible being true over against pervading modernity that liberal Protestantism was accommodating to. It had seemed as though Christianity actually made a concerted effort to sort out what was truly essential and non-essential in the effort to stand before an unbelieving world.

Of course, anyone who knows the sad history of fundamentalism knows full well this fledging movement didn't last. After the embarrassing Scopes "monkey" trial fundamentalists became an object of ridicule that no longer had any credibility in the public square. Responding to this, fundamentalists "circled the wagons" so to speak and turned inwardly virtually obscuring the movement in the name of "keeping itself from pollution of the world."

Hence, the combative spirit that was once aimed at contending for the truth of the resurrection now took aim at one another. Issues like the age of the earth, a woman's place, millennial disputes, and the numerous positions of inerrancy became matters of Orthodoxy on par with the level of the Trinity. Soon, a moralistic sub-culture developed that saw drinking, smoking, and dancing as signs of backsliding down the slippery slope to Armageddon. Repent of your sins for the Rapture is near.

It was not until Carl Henry felt the "uneasy conscious" of fundamentalism and called his like-minded inerrancy-believing Baptists, not to mention anyone else who wanted to come along, to once again engage the culture and stand as faithful witnesses to the truth before a broken humanity. There are mixed feelings about Henry's legacy. Sure he left behind things like Fuller Theological Seminary and Christianity Today, but his spirit lives on in the writings of DA Carson, Al Mohler, Russell Moore, and a lot of what comes out of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. I can't say I agree with every one of those names, but I do respect their commitment to defending the faith before a faithless humanity. That's what matters. That's what we are called to do.

Now I know that all the burning theological issues like the Emerging Church, NT Wright, Open Theism, women's roles, the authority of the Bible, and translation philosophies, are all very interesting and entertaining topics. I have spent more words writing about them than I care to count. They are important to me as the next Christian and I have lots of opinions about them. But there comes a point where "contending for the truth" must recognize that God must "grant repentance" to those who resist it, and then gently move on if the discussion becomes stagnant. Perhaps Paul knew this best. Perhaps all his years spent as a Pharisee debating those pesky Sadducees were a lesson to him: he had searched the Scripture diligently yet didn't know the Word.

And isn't that the point of being a Christian? Aren't our lives centered on someone more foundational than our theological positions? Is there any encouragement that comes from this? Any comfort from his love? Any affection and sympathy? Is it possible that we can find a common ground, a center, a unity in Christ that allows to stand before an unbelieving world that scoffs and mocks the one we call Savior?

All I can do is ask that question, but I am glad that people like Tim Challies and many other bloggers I have met that don't share half my views have shared in this sweet camaraderie that only comes by Christ's blood.

How Anne Lamott Got Her Joy Back

Lamott's pastor, Veronica, told her that God tells his people to rejoice, but to do that you've had to have had joy before.[1] With that in mind, Lamott and her friend, Neshama went to San Quentin to teach inmates how to tell stories. Lamott would teach them how to write-and to use obscenities-and Neshama would teach them how to tell crafted stories from the stage.[2]

It's a great experience to visit prisoners. I've certainly done it and grown spiritually for having done so. Lamott's father had gone to San Quentin as well in the 1950s and 1960s and then published articles in The New Yorker about his students. His approach was simple: "He did not bog down in complex moral and ethical matters-victims' rights, recidivism. He just taught the prisoners to read good books, to speak English, and to write. My father treated them with respect and kindness, his main philosophical and spiritual position being, Don't be an a**hole."[3] Good advice.

Lamott, her dad, her brothers and friends also stood vigil outside the gates of San Quentin "in protest and silent witness whenever someone was going to be gassed."[4] Why? If someone were convicted on murder, why in the world would you protest their execution? Our culture of death has become desensitized to the often brutal murders that occur. Why in the world would I protest the execution of Jessica Lundsford's murderer? He brutalized that little girl. Both the Old as well as the New Testament is clear that putting convicted murderers to death purges the evil from our midst (cf. Deut. 13:5; 17:7, 12; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21; 22:22, 24; 24:7).

In a moment of existential self-awareness Lamott discloses that she hardly knows "what to feel most days, except grief and bug-eyed paranoia."[5] Veronica assured her, however, by her sermons. In one, Ronnie quoted the Reverend James Forbes-who?-as saying, "Nobody gets into heaven without a letter of reference from the poor."[6] Really? Where is that in the Bible? Where do you have to go to get the letter? While it is patently true that the Word of God has a great deal to say about the poor, I'm at a loss about the letter thing.

As they stood waiting outside the prison getting stamped to go in, one guard stamped their hands and said, "You don't glow, you don't go." For Lamott, it was "the best spiritual advice I'd had in a long time."[7] I'll bet it was. Even Veronica couldn't top this spiritual gem. 2 Hesitations 5:12. It just has to rank right up there with some of the greatest spiritual advice imaginable.

Most of the audience was made up of murderers serving life sentences. Candidly, Ms. Lamott tells us that she had some apprehensions because she figured that some might try to win her over so that she would "marry them and get them better lawyers, and consort with them on alternate Tuesdays."[8] There was no danger of that. Not even these lifers were that desperate.

Speaking of criminals-which we are-did you know that "Jesus was soft on crime"?[9] Yep. I suppose Veronica told Ms. Lamott that too. Lamott doesn't elaborate, so we just have to take her at her word. 2 Hesitations something-or-other. Now remember that we've been told that she and Neshama are at San Quentin dealing with men in for life for murder. I'll just bet that you will be as surprised as I was to find out that there was "razor wire everywhere, and a constant clanging and banging of gates and cells and doors."[10] My, my. Imagine that in a prison. Moreover, "Guards carry arms, and keys that could be from the Middle Ages."[11] Unbelievable. I'm shocked! Guards with real guns watching convicted murderers? What is this country coming to?

Continue reading "Anne Lamott: Plan B: Further Thoughts on Faith"

Buying Meaning for Ourselves

David Wells, in his latest book (that I highly recommend), wonders why the canopy of meaning has collapsed so completely on so many.[1] He believes that it's a stretch to conclude that meaning collapsed under the weight of individuals having read the works of postmodern intellectuals.[2] For some, no doubt, this might be the case, but we are talking very small percentages here. Can we decide what the predominant factors were in postmodern culture becoming postmodern culture? Certainly, the transition from one movement to another usually takes time and pinpointing precise dates can be an exercise in futility. We can approximate when pre-modern thinking gave way to Enlightenment ideology, but that's about as good as it gets.

We can also plot "trends," however, and since the Enlightenment there has been a growing trend of relativism in society, especially when it comes to biblical doctrine and ethics. In simple things, like tying our shoes, stopping at stop signs (unless you live in the Boston area where no one stops at stop signs), playing sports, and getting treated by our family physician, we're not relativists, but in ethical issues such as abortion, euthanasia, male and female homosexuality, and capital punishment, just to mention a few, many are consummate relativists. Some even in the Christian Church are trying to take the relativistic "smorgasbord" approach to new lengths.

That is to say, some postmoderns don't want to "buy into" the whole relativistic, nihilistic, lack of certainty about anything, words-have-no-meaning ball of wax. They recognize'perhaps intuitively'that this whole approach is untenable, but still want to search for something'anything'they can use. In other words, they want postmodern on their own terms, which is not at all surprising given the self-absorption of the postmodern and ECM crowd. But this really isn't anything new under the sun. Since the Enlightenment'and before to a lesser extent'non-Christians and nominal Christians both have borrowed heavily from Christianity in order to make sense out of life. For example, both groups might believe that shacking up is okay, but that Hitler was wrong. It's actually rather humorous to listen to non-Christians and nominal Christians explain their life and worldview. Some see no contradiction in having bumper stickers on their car that read: Save the whales. I'm Pro-Choice. This lack of thoughtfulness and coherent thinking transcends gender, language, and economic status.

Continue reading "Postmodernism & The Modern Church (IV)"

Chapter 5-Why I am Missional (II)

We are examining-according to this own words-why Brian McLaren says that he is "missional" and "evangelical." In our last installment, we noted that Mr. McLaren has a propensity for building straw men and then easily and conveniently knocking them down. Living as I do in Southern California, I've asked a number of people if they have ever run across any form of Christianity that is even close to the straw men that McLaren builds and the answers have always been No.

In fact, even the weird Californian wonders where in the world McLaren is dredging up his examples. I think I know, but I can't say where in print. Anyway, in the 5th chapter of his book, he enlightens the uninitiated as to why he is "missional." He makes use of a diagram of concentric circles that explains his approach this way: "...Jesus comes with saving love for the world. He creates the church as a missional community to join him in his mission of saving the world. He invites me to be part of this community to experience his saving love and participate in it." He likes his term because "It also gets rid of terms like missionary and mission field, since now every Christian is a missionary and every place is a mission field."

If this is true-which McLaren never pauses to prove either from Scripture or from another source-then shouldn't all Christians be exceedingly well-trained biblically in order to present the gospel to a lost world? If missional means something akin to what Paul did as an apostle to the Gentiles, then shouldn't we expect some level of proficiency in that undertaking? According to Galatians 1:18 and 2:1, Paul spent some time in preparation for his calling. What types of preparation are McLaren, Miller, Bell, Wallis, and Warren giving to this global outreach?

Given the rampant biblical ignorance in modern Christianity, one can only pray that unless the level of biblical literacy grows exponentially, it would be better for many to stay home and stay put. I'd even go so far as to say that if McLaren is any example of what the modern "missional" person looks like, then it might be better to wait a while. D.A. Carson, in his very fair assessment of the ECM and McLaren says this about A Generous Orthodoxy: "Every chapter of this book succumbs to the same elementary analysis. Every chapter has some useful insights, and every chapter overstates arguments, distorts history, attaches excessively negative terms to all the things with which McLaren disagrees (even when they have been part of the heritage of confessional Christianity for two thousand years), and almost never engages the Scriptures..." The chapter under discussion unfortunately doesn't form an exception.

Continue reading "A Generous Orthodoxy or a Dangerous Heterodoxy?"