Shane Clairborne - NOT my team mate!This blog as a whole is focused on a journey from legalism to grace, therefore of necessity deals with the background that we have lived and that we have transitioned from. I am grateful for having been taught the Word of God as a child and for the many wonderful, Christ-loving people along the way. I am VERY concerned about the cheapening of the Gospel, the legalism, the one two three, repeat after me, no Lordship and no repentance mess that has decimated the heart of Christianity, but that has been covered in many posts. I want to spend a little time today speaking about the other side. To every one of us who have come out of legalism, there is the very real danger of swinging all the way over to antinomianism and a “cheap grace.” I believe this is just as dangerous, if not more than what we left. I have hinted at this in past posts and will amplify on it more in the future.
What really has me a little upset right now are some serious challenges to the Gospel and absolute truth on the left flank of Evangelicalism. I’m not talking about the clueless buffoons in the prosperity Gospel. Their “pimping” of Jesus and shallowness is appalling and is worth it’s own post. Joel Osteen and his crowd are not my target today. I am really worked up about the emerging church movement and Gospel deniers such as Rob Bell, Brian Mcleran, Tony Campolo, Shane Clairborne, and my list could go on for a while. Give me a King James worshipper over these fools any day. May this post put to rest the accusations we sometimes get that we ignore the shenanigans in Evangelicalism. These men are changing the Gospel, and I have NO qualms calling their names and calling them heretics. I am SICK and tired of people who love Christ admiring these men. We are NOT on the same team!!! They are promoting a “Universalist” mentality that the Gospel completely contradicts!!!
I renounce some of the crazy battles of my past! I will not fight over pants on women, style of music, the length of a woman’s hair or communion with wine or grape juice. I have no desire to be embroiled with fights in minor areas with my fellow believers. I can even choose to look past bigger disagreements such as eschatology, spiritual gifts, church government, mode of Baptism, etc. This, however is a man who will roll up his sleeves and FIGHT for the Gospel!!! The truth that all men are sinners and rightfully condemned for their sins (not societal injustices, but individual sin against God) is a truth I WILL fight for! The truth that Jesus Christ, God incarnate, born of a virgin died a substitutionary death on the cross atoning for the sins of all who believe is a truth I WILL fight for! I will NOT let you change the Gospel into righting society and feeding the poor! You will not use middle class guilt and self-righteous appeals to selected, out of context Biblical texts to change the Gospel on this preacher!!!
Let it be clearly said, the danger presented to the truth of the Gospel by pious and humble sounding Gospel deniers like Shane Clairborne is 10 times greater than any of the stupidities of my former movement. This is one preacher who in throwing off some of the unbalanced nonsense of my past refuses to accept the redefining of the Gospel that is all the rage with the “New Monastics” and the “Emerging Church!” They can crawl right back into the hole they emerged from as far as I’m concerned!
Let the record show, I am out of the box, but I’m not jumping into the cesspool!
Hidden in Him,
Tony
39 comments:
Hi Tony - hope you and your family are well!
This particular post raised some questions / concerns for me...so I thought it best to dialogue with you directly. I'll ask my questions, then 'hang up and listen'. If the dialogue feels bad in any way...we can certainly take it off line. My hope is that it would be helpful.
I should begin with a disclaimer. I pastor at a church that is considered by many to be one of the flagships of the emerging church. Interestingly enough, we would never consider ourselves to be that. We adhere to the scripture, the creeds, and the message of Jesus as best we understand it. The emergent label was given to us by other people...we didn't ask for it...and we don't feel like it is a great fit.
I should also make the distinction between Emergent (the organization) and churches that have been labeled to be emergent. You painted with a broad brush in your article, but I will try to differentiate if necessary.
Now to my questions / concerns:
One of the things I’ve enjoyed about your writing is that you’ve been consistently loving and graceful. I've appreciated the fact that, while you have had many opportunities to take a shovel to the head of our past establishment, your words have been filled with grace. Unfortunately, I found that lacking in this post
In the article directly preceding this one, you said:
"I have decided not to highlight publications to keep this post from seeming like an attack on an institution or person, which it is not."
This is what I have appreciated about your blog! However, in this post, you call people whom you have never met 'fools', 'gospel deniers', and you invite them to 'crawl back into the hole they came from?'
My point here has nothing to do with their theology...but only to do with our responsibility to be defined by grace and love. My question would be why you chose to name names of people you do not know – while in almost all of your other writing you have refrained from naming names and name calling?
And this leads me to my other question. Do you think it is wise of us to use this medium to attack people we do not know personally? The people you have mentioned in your rant are people with whom I have been able to spend time. Even though I have theological differences with them, the fact that I know them as people makes it unthinkable for me to attack as u have. My suspicion is that your refusal to attack those from our shared past stems from the same ethic. The best parallel I can draw would be a personal attack on Steve Green – which many have done – saying that he doesn’t play for the same team. I can imagine that any difference you had with him would certainly be dealt with in a way that reflects scriptural conflict resolution simply because of your relationship. As a person who has been subject to many hurtful and dishonest posts (as I’m sure you have), I just can’t imagine what is gained through this approach.
My final question would be this: How much investigation has been done here? Have you had conversations with these men? Heard them speak? Listened to podcasts? Read their books? And if the answer is 'a yes', then please share those facts and instances so the rest of us can learn from your experience. If the answer is no, then I would hope for some prayerful evaluation of your tactic. Any one can take sound bytes and make people heretical.
Please know that I post this here with respect for you and your family. My hope is that people will learn that friends can disagree and dialogue without killing each other. Again – if this is offensive in any way…please let me know so we can continue the conversation in another form. And (as I’m sure you will) I am interested to hear more detail as to your specific concerns with the men you listed.
Ben
Ben,
Greetings to you and your family as well! I appreciate very much the tenor of your post. I am more than happy to have a productive and amicable dialogue on this, and more than ready to be shown where I am wrong. A couple of observations...
The post would be extremely ineffective in adressing anyone in any way connected with the movement at all. I guess I foolishly assumed that any readers of this blog would be a very far from that position. I didn't take the time to lay out some basic facts, you are correct in qualifying it as a "rant."
Clearly there are different "lanes" as Mark Driscoll notes within this movement. The men I named are all firmly camped in the most extreme and most dangerous lane of this movement.
If by "emergent" you mean a desire to be relevant to our generation without in ANY way compromising the message and with complete certainty of the Gospel, then I am an emergent. I assume that your position would be close to this. If that is the case, I have no beef with you.
When it comes to the men I have named, I have done quite a bit of research, out of necessity, I might add. My humble opinion is that these men are enemies of the Gospel. They are proposing heretical thoughts that have the potential of gutting all that matters in what you and I believe. I know that is easier said than proved, and I will be glad to do so, I simply can't this moment as I must prepare for our Wednesday service.
Thanks again though, for your kind approach. I really appreciate it. I will try to keep in mind your gentle admonition as we have this discussion.
Take care!!!
Thanks for your response Tony. I'll be praying for the service tonight.
I would love (as if we have nothing else to do) to hear some of your specific arguments. But I'm not in a hurry:)
Thanks again for your humble and gracious response. My best to you and your family.
As I have a little more time to write this evening, I would make the following obervations.
The men from my past are guilty of many things (as I have been and am, I'm sure, but I don't know of a one of them who would cast doubt on the virgin birth, cast doubt on the reliability of scripture, say that Jesus is not the only way to Heaven, etc. If you can point to ONE individual from my past who makes any claims within this realm (clear heresy) than I will call them by name, and I will scripturally be able to call them fools as well. I didn't use that word flippantly. Anyone who goes there, is a fool. Billy Graham, as much as I admire all he did in his early ministry was a FOOL at the end of his ministry when he gutted the claims of Christ by saying publicly on the air with Robert Schuller that it was not necessary to believe on the name of Christ for salvation. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNCnxA91fHE) Joel Osteen was a fool when he again and again refused to answer the simple question posed to him by Larry King about wheteher or not Christ is the only way to Heaven. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPeYUXuuRUM)
Shane Clairborne and Tony Campolo in the following conversation are both fools.
SC: Both Muslims and Christians are very evangelical in the sense of desiring others to come to faith in their God. When we talk about inter-religious cooperation, does that mean that we need to stop trying to convert each other?
TC: We don’t have to give up trying to convert each other. What we have to do is show respect to one another. And to speak to each other with a sense that even if people don’t convert, they are God’s people, God loves them, and we do not make the judgment of who is going to heaven and who is going to hell.
I think that what we all have to do is leave judgment up to God. The Muslim community is very evangelistic, however what Muslims will not do is condemn Jews and Christians to Hell if in fact they do not accept Islam.
SC: That seems like a healthy distinction—between converting and condemning. One of the barriers seems to be the assumption that we have the truth and folks who experience things differently will all go to Hell. How do we unashamedly maintain a healthy desire for others to experience the love of God as we have experienced it without condemning others who experience God differently…
(the full interview can be found here: http://www.crosscurrents.org/CompoloSpring2005.htm)
Cintinued...
See Ben, I believe we have allowed ourselves to be so intimidated by the idea that we are "uncool" if we speak out dogmatically on anything, that we allow blatant heresy to grow in our midst while we show "Christian love" to each other. You know I can reproduce hundreds of quotes from all of these guys that are mind-blowing quotes. Mclaren in particular is a peice of work. I really believe it is important that in our desire to be accepting of others and be "non-judgemental" that we not lose our ability to call a spade a spade. These men are not simply advocating a "seeker-friendly" service. They are calling Jesus Christ, who said "I am the WAY the TRUTH and the LIFE and NO ONE comes to the Father but by me" a LIAR! I'm not ok with that! I believe I said in my original post that I was worked up about this. Actually I'm angry!
What I so despise about where I came from is the way the Gospel has been cheapened! These guys aren't just cheapening it, they are CHANGING it!
Read Clairborne's "Jesus for President" and show me the Gospel. It's not there! There is a whole bunch of nonsense about the empire and the rainforest and Walmart, but nothing about the atonement.
Ben, we are always calling out the "moderate Ismaic clerics" for not standing up to the "extremists" who have supposedly "hijacked" a peaceful religion. Yet here we are, with these guys who are supposedly in our ranks yet they are shredding our very foundation, and we are not to call them out for it? Their writings are public. Their statements are public. Their deeds are not done in a corner. If the path they are mapping out is followed by evangelicalism as a whole, we are ONE generation away from disaster. These men need to be marked and exposed.
This is NOT the stupidity of my past where one Pastor preaches against the other for not being "King James only", these men are shredding the Gospel. They have re-packaged the social Gospel, added some mysticism and "deep thinking", and set themselves up as smarter than 1,500 years of Christ followers. They are enemies of the Gospel. I would be glad to retract that if I'm wrong. Sadly I don't think I am.
There is a long sad story as to why I began digging into all of this a while back. What I have found has trully made me more zealous for the Gospel than ever. I cannot sit silently by and allow these wolves in sheep's clothing to hurt anyone I love. Anyone under the scope of my ministry will hear what the Gospel is and the need to defend it against attacks like these.
Again, as I mentioned in my last post, Mark Driscol makes clear that there are four "lanes" within this movement. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58fgkfS6E-0) I probably have bigger issues with the first three than he seems to, but the fourth lane is waist deep and heading deeper into heresy.
Perhaps a couple of questions could help us. How would you define heresy? What do you feel about the gentlemen in this "fourth lane?" Specifically...
Mclaren, Pagitt, Bell, Jones, Campolo, Clairborne, McManus. How much farther would any of these guys have to go in their public statements before they should be reproved for them?
Was Billy Graham's statement heresy?
Well, it's getting late. I've got to call it a night for now. Looking forward to your response. Take care!!!
I'm staying up way too late catching up on the blog roll over at The "Emergent Village". The following blog post has me ready to pull my hair out. What do you find objectionable in this post?
http://www.emergentvillage.com/weblog/the-palatable-gospel
Hey Tony,
Apologies for the length between responses. At first it was a busy season, and then I just forgot! One of the pitfalls of lots of blogs, facebooks, twitters and all the rest.
I think your questions about heresy are probably the place to start. You asked how I would define ‘heresy’. My best understanding of heresy is that is involves change to an established system of belief. For me as a Christian, heresy would be the direct and consistently confirmed denial of the foundational beliefs of Christianity.
I believe our two differences would be what those foundational beliefs are, and how we determine if someone is heretical.
First, let me address the subject of which beliefs must be held to keep one from being a heretic. You say that the men of your past are guilty of many things, but heresy is not among them. I disagree. I went to school for four years with people that absolutely took a butcher knife to the scripture. If (as you claim) the people you have named are abusers of the scripture, how is it worse than what the other side is doing? My point is that, if one side is guilty of poor scriptural interpretation, then so is the other.
As to the other beliefs that you mention…I agree. Jesus as the way to a relationship with God is foundational for Christian belief. Which leads me to my second point about determining if someone is a heretic. You ask if Billy Graham’s statement was heresy. My answer is no.
Billy Graham, a Christian Celebrity, is being judged by many based on one statement out of a lifetime of proclaiming the gospel. Because he is Billy Graham (and because of the internet), his statement has been viewed repeatedly. Fortunately, it has not been viewed by near the number of people who have come to Christ because of Graham’s clear (non-heretical) and simple presentation of the gospel. Every week (across all denominations including militant fundamentalism) pastors stand in pulpits and say things that are not completely true or correctly interpreted. Fortunately, most of the those pastors have the opportunity to correct those statements…or explain what they meant in context.
Listen again to the statement made by Graham. One could quite easily interpret his statement as a claim that God is calling people of all religions to Himself through the power of Jesus. One could interpret Graham’s statements to mean that even if a person doesn’t know the name of Jesus yet, the Spirit of God is still calling and moving in their life. The clip of Billy Graham can be interpreted differently than “it is not necessary to believe in Christ for salvation.” An individual can’t be called a heretic based on one one-millionth of their spoken words.
This is my problem with calling Billy Graham a heretic. It is, at best, a value judgment.
Tony, I’m not in agreement with several things that these individuals say (more with some than others), but for every example you give of a way that they have spoken heresy, I can give you another one in which they have upheld the foundational truths of Christianity. In light of that reality, what makes a person a heretic?
Tony – when you’re talking about Osteen, you mention how he avoids a, “simple question.” This idea of the gospel being simple is one that I agree with. I do not, however, agree with the idea that determining the work of God in the life of another is simple. That is what I think Campolo is saying. “We do not give up trying to convert each other. What we have to do is show respect to one another. And to speak to each other with a sense that even if people don’t convert, they are God’s people, God loves them, and we do not make the judgment of who is going to heaven and who is going to hell.” I agree with TC in the idea that all people are made in the image of God, and therefore matter to God. I think we both agree that God loves all people (Christians and non-Christians) with an everlasting love. Paul says that, “God showed his love for us in this way – while we were still sinners Christ died for us.” I have sat in a room with TC and SC…and I don’t believe that there hesitancy to judge is the same as heresy.
Now – I completely agree with the next thing you say. I also believe that we have been intimidated by the idea of being uncool. In the same way that Apple has belittled the computer by making it a fat guy in a tie, some people in the emerging movement (especially the emergent village) have played that cool card.
I also agree that some of these men have said things that are untrue. Where they have gone wrong, I believe we should be able to lovingly and respectfully disagree. For me personally, however, I choose not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. McLaren (who is one of the most genuine and gracious men I have ever met…the exact opposite of 90 percent of my past), has said several things that I don’t agree with. His book on Hell (while he never says there is no hell…quite a master of ambiguity in some respects) led to incorrect conclusions based on my understanding of the scripture. While I don’t agree with the idea of the hell we were taught, I also reject the idea that everyone goes to heaven. So – yes – let’s call a spade a spade…but when a person gets something wrong (as we all do), let’s respond in love and grace…acknowledging that they might get some other things very right.
McLaren for example: Tony, you and I share a past with an organization/ministry that has seen millions of dollars pass through its doors. They have the lights from Opryland and a water fountain in their building…but (during my time) there was nothing being done to help the poor or oppressed in the world. In my mind, that is an extremely heretical (misrepresenting the message of the scripture) position. McLaren has contributed greatly to the very scriptural idea of how we might join with God in healing the world (kingdom of God theology) rather than just waiting for our ticket to heaven to be stamped. My point is that we should be able to celebrate what is true and disagree respectfully where we find error.
I will also agree with you that, there are places and people where the gospel is being changed completely. We should be able to say (even if it is uncool) that these people are wrong, and that we believe the scripture says something different. But we need better examples for how to disagree than Kevin DeYoung (Why we’re not emergent) or Mark Driscoll.
Again – my beef is not with the disagreement, it is with the personal attacks against people who genuinely love God. Maybe they are wrong…and in some areas maybe we are (After all we are all blind to our own blindness), but that does not justify a response that is not Christ like. That was my point from the beginning.
Again, I believe the, “shredding of the gospel” has occurred repeatedly and consistently in right-winged, militant, fundamentalist Christianity, as much as it has in some factions of the emergent movement. We can disagree with what we believe to be contrary to scripture…even saying that we think these people are wrong (both fundamentalists and emergents) but I don’t see how we can call any of them enemies of the gospel.
Tony, at the end of the day, I believe you are entitled to your belief in this matter, and I respect that. I believe that your heart for protecting people around you from heresy is well meant and commendable. Even though we don’t like to admit it – we all are in the continual process of spiritual discernment as we attempt to interpret the scriptures for our current context. As we interpret scripture, we will no doubt find ourselves in disagreement with people…even with friends. One of the things I have respected about many in the emergent movement is the ability to disagree respectfully. (I do wish that some weren’t so insufferably arrogant towards those that they deem to be “not quite as enlightened”)
While I’m not a Driscoll fan (Great command of scripture/preaching, horribly mean spirited and inappropriate), I agree with his idea of “lanes.” My difference would be with whom I would put in which lanes.
Your final question was, “How far should these people go in their public statements before they should be reproved for them?” My answer would be, “not far”, but I bet we’d disagree on what reproving looks like! The people who know them should speak to them directly. The rest of us should feel free to respectfully voice our disagreement with their theology while not making them out to be the Anti-Christ.
Much of Christianity has been focused on what we are against, and not what we are for. Personally, I believe that Jesus offers us the best possible version of life. As we place our trust in him, we can not only restore our relationship with God, but we can join with God as He begins to heal the world here and now. I want to spend my life spreading the message of God’s great love for us through Jesus rather than spending all of my time trying to figure out who else might have gotten it wrong.
It’s at this point in the conversation that I always worry about overstepping my bounds. I really don’t think we are that far apart in how our belief plays out day-to-day…and I have great respect for your position. Thank you for engaging in this conversation…not very many people will.
Hi Ben - greetings from London, visit us again sometime! I have carefully read Tony's comments, your responses and checked out the YouTube links. My response is firstly, I agree Ben that our response to others in the Body of Christ should not be calling people 'fools', I agree that there are some in the Body who have gone into error in some interpretations of doctrine, but whether they are heretics depends on whether they are denying Jesus Christ as the Saviour or not. From what Billy Graham has said on that video, he is not denying Jesus Christ as Saviour yet is condemned by your friend Tony. The clip starts with him saying that those who know or love Christ 'whether or not they are conscious of Him' are part of the Body of Christ. Well the mistake in his expression there is that no-one can love the Lord without any awareness of Him so it's an ambiguous unclear comment. His next error is in reference to various people, i.e muslims etc etc that if they are called by God, they are in the Body of Christ. We know from Holy Scripture that "if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they are NOT HIS" romans 8:9 (my emphasis added). So whilst it was certainly a foolish comment from brother Billy, at the same time, he seems to be saying that people can have a sense of God speaking to them, but what he failed to make clear is that they must be 'born again'. I would not label him a fool and heretics because he is not denying the Saviour, but he is making statements which do contain error, as with Joel Osteen who also showed an unfortunate ambiguity and reluctance to state that people need to come through Jesus alone. I am sure we have all, on occasions, been guilty of ambiguous responses if directly challenged by non-believers on whether they are going to hell or not, we know that they will perish without Christ, but are not always bold to say it, does this mean we are heretics too? I say not. If I hear Joel Osteen or Billy Graham categorically state that Jesus is not the only way of salvation then I will pray for them. A clear example of a heretic would be 'Bishop' Carlton Pearson, a charismatic pastor who went into the 'gospel of inclusion' which is a fancy name for universalism. He clearly states that he does not believe people are sinners on their way to hell, that everyone is saved but simply doesn't know it yet. I would not put his clearly heretical position in the same pool as the other two I mentioned. If we are going to label people as heretics, let's be clear on what heresy is, and unfortunately some will differ on what they interpret heresy to be. A denial of Jesus as the Christ (1John2:22), a denial of Him as the Saviour of the world (John4:42), a denial of the Bible as the true word of God,(2Timothy3:16) would be heresy in my thinking, not someone being reluctant or ambiguous about who is going to hell through political correctness (though I dislike political correctness).
Tony, I found your blog thru Ben...I hope I can add a little to the convo.
I agree with you! The Gospel has been hijacked by a false band-aid type social gospel, rather than one of Jesus Christ's subsitutionary atonement.
This is why great men (Mark Dever, CJ Mahaney, Albert Mohler, and Ligon Duncan have put together their conferences on "Together 4 the Gospel" -- to SAVE the Gospel from pirates.
Ben, I'm sure you and I agree...and maybe I just misinterepreted one of your comments. I don't think Tony is merely addressing mistakes (for instance, his mentioning of those periphery, non-salvific issues like immersion or sprinkling baptism, etc). The issue is a changing -- complete altering of the Gospel -- by the likes of McLaren. As nice of a guy as he may be, nice guys, too, can be heretics. I've read a few of his books and heard a radio interview with him conducted by an apologist radio host in Detroit (Bob Dutko) and he denied the exclusivity of Jesus Christ for salvation. Denied it! It caused such a question mark in the community of his listeners that he re-broadcasted the interview the following day, just so people could hear it again and be certain of what they had heard. You asked Tony for specifics, but all you have to do is read just one of McLaren's books to see it for yourself that he is changing the Gospel!
As for Osteen, that's a no-brainer. I listened to his podcasts for 30 days so I could make a right assessment. His gospel is one of success and happy thoughts. Far from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Susanne, how can a person love someone without being "conscious" of them? Seriously. Take a mement and seriously consider that remark. This Billy Graham statement is foolish -- nothing less! You and I have to be consciously aware of a person or group before we can love them. I cannot love the people of never-never land unless I am conscious they exist. Otherwise, they are a figment of my imagination, and cannot be loved anyway. This is why missionaries in indigenous lands take the gospel to the natives, becasue faith comes only by hearing the Word of God -- not otherwise.
People are saved only by Jesus Christ, something I think all 4 of us agree on here. But, in calling a spade a spade, I think Tony hits the nail on the head in this post. Our leaders have not called these men (and sometimes women) out for their false teachings. Tony is not condemning these men to hell -- he's condemning their false teachings, which is something we're ALL permitted and expected to do. We must read their works carefully and critically, not simply reading to get the warm fuzzies.
Great conversation. Thanks for letting me in.
Susan brings up what I think is a very important point - and I think a point on which Tony and greatly differ. Susan said that heresy is not the same as someone being ambiguous for the sake of political correctness. I agree with her. While I too wish some of these people would take a clearer stand, the fact that they refuse to condemn people to hell (claiming that is God's responsibility) does not make them heretical in my opinion.
Ben and Suzanne, it is a drastic jump often made by emergents to say others are "condemning people to hell" simply because we/they disagree with the emergents. Nobody said in this string of conversations that those men must "condemn people to hell" in order to be "gospel-centered".
This conversation has strayed from Tony's original comment regarding those leaders' unfaithfulness to Christ's true Gospel -- a Gospel of atonement for sin. Tony never said they had to start condemning people to hell.
Instead, the conversation has turned to "heretics"...which is reminiscent of 14th century stake-burnings without fair trials. However, these men have spoken and written not only in ambiguity, but also clearly, that the gospel they profess is not that of Jesus Christ's. And we have a responsibility to "test" their own words according to the Bible. It has not been said (not based on what I've seen, anyway) that an unclear stance on items central to the Gospel are heretical.
Susanne - I'm the only one that knows you...and I can't spell your name correctly!
I also found this blog through Ben (who attended the same school/church as I did growing up).
My question here is how does this issue work itself out within the belief that people can interpret the Bible for themselves (or one definition of "priesthood of the believer")? At what point does the importance of personal interpretation become irrelevant? To frame it another way, by what authority other than a personal/individual (even as a "collective individual") authority can you define Campolo, McLaren, et al as "heretics" and by whose definition of the word (whose theological context) do you mean that? In light of the answer to that question, to what extent does that provide enough support to use terms like "fool" and the like?
So, Joel, we can't question anything or anyone because we can't be sure where we get our authority? Really? Where does McClaren get the authority to say that Genesis is clearly a fable or to deny the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ? We have no authority as children of God to question things clearly in violation of the teaching of the Word of God? The whole idea driving the 'Emergent Village' is the idea of undermining all authority (especially Biblical authority) so that they can tell everyone what they should believe and how they should feel when believing it. They say that we are far too 'westernized' to really know what the Bible is truly saying. They are not hiding these things.
Raising unnecessary questions about the atonement, virgin birth, the origin of life, Scripture itself, sexual relationships, etc. is not healthy, Christ-exalting acts of those who are in love with Jesus because He took God's wrath on their behalf. It is the actions of those who either don't understand the Gospel and it's implications or simply do not know Jesus in the first place.
You may not be willing to call these questions and positions heretical, but when they are in clear violation of the very heart of the 'Good News' of Jesus, you certainly cannot call them Christian. Paul didn't and wouldn't put up with it and told God's children to not entertain anything of the sort for one second. He called such Gospel destroying/denying questions and those who taught them 'accursed'.
Did he have the authority to be so harsh?
Preach on, Trevor, preach on! You said what I wanted to say, but much more diplomatically.
Trevor: I applaud your passionate, spirited post. A few notes:
-- I never claimed that your own lack of authority (which you seem to admit to by asking that first question) precludes you from making statements and judgments on various positions. I would never argue that lack of authority should keep anyone from attempts at discernment.
-- I think you understandably made assumptions about my underlying position behind what I posted. Within the context you have to work with, I don't blame you for making the assumption that I was trying to defend McLarene. Truth is, I'm not at all interested in him or anyone else. For the sake of full disclosure, I'm (Eastern) Orthodox Christian -- we've dealt with those same heresies and as you obviously know, St. Paul was one of the earliest defenders -- so my questions weren't posed as any kind of defense for any of the pastors/writers mentioned.
-- As evidenced in my last post, I think one of the most intriguing aspects of Emerging/emergent "movement" is the discussion of authority. It's interesting to me, too, that (like so many fledgling movements) some of those who get tagged as part of the movement have never professed that affiliation (as Ben points out is the case with his church -- though I'm really not familiar with it at all). McLaren and company love the Postmodern theory lingo and ideals, and of course those are reaction to modernism (particularly modern Protestantism), which is itself reactionary by nature. Like I said, I'm not interested in defending any of the groups involved in this conversation (or to argue my own thoughts on authority -- the Orthodox position isn't any secret and I'm not here to restate what's stated eloquently elsewhere). Rather, I'm off to the side asking questions about authority because that's what interests/intrigues me the most about this conversation. I'm interested to see other answers.
Joel,
I so appreciate your attitude and kind way of responding. Thank you, as well, for giving me the benefit of the doubt. Believe me, the last thing I want to come off as being is a 'fighting fundamentalist'. I've seen the despair and pain that can cause first hand and I want absolutely nothing to do with it. I also don't want to act like I've got the Christianity market cornered and, by implication, have all the answers. I don't want to be staunch and un-teachable, but in love with and treasuring Jesus. I just want (with compassion and love) to be zealous and jealous for the truth of the Gospel. I don't want to ever be hateful or ugly, but truth must be held up as such or we're not being loving at all. My concern is not with non-essentials, but with the truth of the person of Jesus and what it means to be redeemed.
Thanks again for the kind response and I, too, look forward to the discussion moving forward.
My apologies for assuming on you.
Hi Mike, you should read my comment more carefully, I stated Billy Graham's comment and then critiqued it, you made it sound like it was my comment that people can somehow 'unconsciously' know the Lord, please read comments carefully, thanks.
For some reason I was posted as anonymous even though I input my details, it's Susanne commenting above. Anyway, the discussion seems to have turned into something else unhelpful in my opinion. May we all be encouraged to continue to boldly and faithfully preach Christ crucified and risen, and anyone who claims to be Christian and does the opposite let us challenge in the wisdom of the Holy Spirit.
Susanne, I know BG's comment was not your comment, and I indeed read your comment very carefully. I understand you "critiqued" it, but it appeared that you disagreed that his comment was, in fact, foolish based on what you said about Tony "condemning" him. Therefore, I asked the question about "consciousness" etc. That's all...just trying to make the point.
oops, I hit send before I was finished. Susanne, please do not interpret my first comment as an attack, because it was not. This is one problem with on-line communication rather than person-to-person...it is difficult to truly understand each person's tone when reading their words.
So when I wrote, "seriously", I understand it could easily be interpreted with a kind of "valley girl inflection", when if you and I were talking face to face, you would have understood my tone a different way.
Nuff said.
Hello, hello!
Note to self... if you ever want to generate a little traffic, post a controversial post on the "Emerging Church!" :)
Seriously, good discussion, all, and I really appreciate the tenor of the posts. I have not been ignoring all of this, the weekend was very busy and Monday is for my family. It's late Tuesday night and here I am.
First, as I had stated before, but may have gotten missed... to Ben's original objection to my post...
There are two parts, as I see it anyway. One, is the tenor of my post. As I acknowledged immediately, it WAS a rant and it certainly would not have been a helpful way to begin a dialogue with anyone who considered themselves as "emergent"in any way shape or form. I readily acknowledge that. My "cute" little dig at the end when I say "they can crawl back into whatever hole they emerged from" was probably over the top as well. So, for any hurt feelings, and especially for not clarifying in the post that they are different "streams" as it were within the "movement," I certainly do apologize.
Now, to what I would see as the second objection. I don't want to put words in Ben's mouth or anyone else... I think I hear this objection...
"These guys are brothers in Christ who we disagree with in some areas, we really shouldn't be so dismissive of them, or so quick to write them off."
I think that sums up what several are saying.
To that objection, I'm not sure that I can agree or recant anything I said. But, just to clarify what I did and did not say...
I did not call Billy Graham a heretic. In the context of discussing what exactly could be classified as heresy I presented a statement by him and asked the question if what he said was heresy. It may seem like a distinction without a difference, but I think that someone can make a heretical statement and be called on it, without necessarily being called a heretic. I did say he was a fool when he made that statement. That was probably an unhelpful word for the discussion, but I have to stand by it, lest it look like in any way I am softening my stance. Let's put it like this... That is an EXTREMELY foolish statement. I THINK we can ALL agree on that. Now, Ben, you seem to be willing to give Billy the benefit of the doubt as to what he meant. SO was I, for a long time. The movement I cam from was so quick to judge everyone that I really wanted no part of judging anything anyone did, especially not someoene who seemed to love Christ as much as Dr. Graham. I am sad to report however, that Billy Graham said exactly what he meant in that interview. I appreciate very much your desire to hear something else in his words, Ben, it's just not the case. Dr. Graham has affirmed that position in writting, and in testimony repeatedly, and has never rescinded any of it. It is all there in the public record. Since Dr. Graham was not, however the original "target" in this discussion, I will set that aside for now. As to my question, "was that statement heresy", I think the clear answer, even by the definitions you provide for heresy, the answer is an unequivocal "yes." You answered the question "Does that statement make Dr. Graham a heretic?" and your answer was "no" with an appeal to his broader ministry and a generous attempt to explain what he could have meant. On it's face, however, his statement is clear heresy, even by your definitions. He denies that Christ is the only way to the Father by embracing the idea that some can come to the Father without coming through Christ.
Why is this important? Because it goes to the heart of my original post. When I say that these men "the radical emergent church guys" are "gospel deniers" and "not on my team" I don't mean that they hate Jesus or want to crucify His followers. I mean that the theological positions they are taking or refusing to take are undermining the Gospel and that because of this they are doing WAY more harm than any possible good to the body of Christ. I believe that with every fiber of my being. Again, as I have stated, I would be glad to be proved wrong, but I don't see it any different yet.
Continued...
Ok...
Ben...
Who is a friend and I respect (for any observers)
In answer to some of your questions/observations...
I appreciate your personal testimony as to the graciousness that you observed in Brian Mclaren and Shane Clairborne. You and I have been around enough insufferable wind bags (I can tend to be one) to really appreciate these qualities when we see them displayed by someoen in a leadership role. So, while I appreciate it, I would say in this discussion, it is completely irrelevant, at least to me. One of the most "humble" and "gracious" people I've ever met was an atheist. In the question about whether what they are saying is "heretical" or not, not only is their personal comportment a non issue, it can actually cloud the issue. If they were "boorish" in their behavior (as some in our past) it wouldn't necessarily make what they say untrue, just like their "graciousness" does not make anything they say "true." I'm not saying you suggested this, I'm just saying that while it is interesting information, it means nothing to the question of whether or not they are "right" in what they say.
My next observation... you challenge me to consider some of the poor hermeneutics of our shared past and some of the excesses (extremely expensive chandeliers etc.). I concede your point. Actually this whole blog is about that. The movement you and I have our roots in has lost it's way in these and many other issues. I agree. Having said that, allow me to say... you are comparing grapes to watermelons. As much as I agree with you and despise some of the stupidities of my past, it is an unfair comparison. It just is.
Example...
Two Fathers...
One disciplines his children in anger at times instead of doing it patiently and prayerfully and lovingly...
The second Father sexually abuses his children.
The first Father is stupid, and needs a Pastor or people in his life to teach him how to do it right. The second Father needs shot.
I know the illustration is a little graphic, I hope I don't have to end up apologizing for it... it's just that the two don't really even belong in the same conversation, they certainly should not be compared. One is stupid, the other is criminal.
I repeat what I said in my original answer. Point to a man in my past that didn't just espouse a dumb view, but actually taught heresy, and I will call him out. The instance of Jack Hyles for a little while teaching that you had to be lead to Christ out of the King James Bible comes pretty close. I vehemently opposed it then, if he were still alive and teaching it today I would call it heresy right here.
Again, I can't stress this enough. There is a whole truck load of stupid stuff taught in our former circles, but they proclaim and uphold the cardinal truths that our faith is founded upon. Surely you agree with that. At the end of the day, if it comes down to choosing between being in a foxhole with Dr. John Doe form my past or Brian Mclaren, I'm with Dr. John Doe EVERY time! At least he believes the Bible is God's WORD!!!! Brian Mclaren is an arch heretic. He is NOT on my team. He is against the Gospel, against absolute truth and according to scripture he is to be anathema.
With as much humility as I can say it, your comparison of his "mistakes" and the "mistakes" of our past falls way short. He may be the nicest heretic the world has ever seen, but Brian McLaren is indeed a heretic and he is a very dangerous man.
For anyone who is following this discussion, I invite you to hear it from Brian Mclaren and not from me. Go to the Emerging Village website and subscribe to their podcast. Listen to Brian's "walk through the Bible". He absolutely destroys the Gospel. I have listened to every episode. This man, believes NOTHING that I believe. I would sooner believe a Budhist is proclaiming the Gospel than Brian Mclaren.
You see, the point of my post (rant) was to express outrage that these heretics are being referred to as Christian brothers. They simpy are not. They are preaching a different Gospel completely.
You have to hear it for yourself!!! While you are there, also be sure to listen to Tony Jones' interview with Mark Baker and listen as they agree that "penal substitution" is a horrid way to look at the cross. They agree that we cannot have our children believing that God punished his own Son on the cross.
Ben, I HAVE to assume you just haven't heard these guys say these things!!! They are NOT our brothers and sisters!!! They are heretics. They are destroying what I am seeking to build. They are on the other team.
I am REALLY interested in anyone's comments who actually listens to these podcasts. Don't take it from me. Hear it from them, then let me know where I am wrong.
These are no small things. They are the very core of the Gospel. When they deny them, these men are in effect "enemies of the Gospel" and "not on my team".
Two other men I refferred to earlier are Shane Clairborne and Tony Campolo. Allow me to prsent this in answer to another of your questions, Ben. You say that we ought to look at the times they upho;d truths, not just they "questionable comments." I think this interview deals with that very well. I posted this link already, but allow me to reproduce it again so it can be read in it's entirety. I'm not sure if I would be allowed to reproduce it here in it's entirety or not, also, it is rather lengthy, so I will paste the really relevant parts, but encourage ALL to read it and dissect it carefully.
Original interview:
http://www.crosscurrents.org/CompoloSpring2005.htm)
Excerpts of interview... Part 1
Shane Clairborne asks Tony to define Evangelical.
Tony Campolo: An evangelical is someone who believes the doctrines of the Apostle's Creed. That outlines exactly what we believe in detail. Secondly, an evangelical has a very high view of scripture though not necessarily inerrancy. And the third thing—we believe that salvation comes by being personally involved with a living resurrected Jesus. So I've defined evangelical in those three terms. There is a doctrinal statement, so that there is some content to what we believe. There is a source of truth, Scripture. And there is a personal relationship with Jesus.
Sounds pretty good at first blush, huh? I guess this is one of those times I am supposed to see that he does uphold truth and it should counterbalance out the wacky stuff.
Wrong. These guys are very crafty with their words. First, not believing in innerancy leaves you NO room for absolute truth, which leaves EVERYTHING open for debate, which is in fact the hallmark of this movement. Secondly, notice the language... "Personally involved with Jesus" "Personal relationship with Jesus." Sounds good, huh? What does he MEAN by that? Ah, don't worry, he'll tell us later on.
Next, the section I highlighted earlier...
SC: Both Muslims and Christians are very evangelical in the sense of desiring others to come to faith in their God. When we talk about inter-religious cooperation, does that mean that we need to stop trying to convert each other?
TC: We don't have to give up trying to convert each other. What we have to do is show respect to one another. And to speak to each other with a sense that even if people don't convert, they are God's people, God loves them, and we do not make the judgment of who is going to heaven and who is going to hell.
I think that what we all have to do is leave judgment up to God. The Muslim community is very evangelistic, however what Muslims will not do is condemn Jews and Christians to Hell if in fact they do not accept Islam.
SC: That seems like a healthy distinction—between converting and condemning. One of the barriers seems to be the assumption that we have the truth and folks who experience things differently will all go to Hell. How do we unashamedly maintain a healthy desire for others to experience the love of God as we have experienced it without condemning others who experience God differently?
TC: Islam is much more gracious towards evangelical Christians who are faithful to the New Testament, than Christians are towards Islamic people who are faithful to the Koran. The Islamic faith will ask, "Are you faithful to the book that you have?" Mohammad was very understanding that there was great truth in Christianity. He differed with us in that he felt he had a more complete truth, and Islam would hold to that, but Mohammad contended that we would ultimately be judged in terms of the truth that we had at our disposal.
This is an incredible straw man. Of course only GOD condemns someone to hell! We are not God!!! BUT THE BIBLE SAYS THAT IF YOU DON'T HAVE JESUS YOU DON"Y HAVE LIFE! When a Doctor looks a patient in the face and says you have cancer that has spread througout your body and is going to kill you unless you treat it, he is not "condemning" that person, he is giving an accurate diagnosis based on truth. When a Christian lovingly warns a non-Christian that if he does not come to Christ he will be eternally separated from God in Hell he is not condemning that person, he is loving that person. Shane and Tony deny the Gospel in this excgange.
Sorry for the typos... it's late!
Another heretical gem from Tony...
There is much in Christianity that would suggest exactly the same thing, particularly Romans the 2nd chapter, where the apostle Paul says "What do we say of those who do not accept the law of God," and I would add "as we understand it," "and are faithful to all the things that God calls us to do—will God not have to make room for them?" He asks that as a rhetorical question, leaving the reader with the obvious sense—"but of course." So I think that the apostle Paul would be a lot more generous towards Islamic people than most of my evangelical brothers and sisters are. If both sides are willing to live up to the truth as they perceive it and if both sides are willing to say we are not going to compromise what we believe but we are convinced that in the end the other side will have a chance to respond in a positive manner to what we believe. I think we can live together in peace and without attacking each other and without condemning each other.
He just wont stop. He follows that up with this beauty...
Catholicism would say that at the moment of death every person is confronted in that split moment with Christ and is given the opportunity of saying yes or no. To say otherwise is to say God has got to be a pretty unfair deity, to condemn three quarters of the human race to hell without them ever having a chance.
He just said that at the end of the day if God doesn't do it Tony's way and takes a "Universal second chance after death" approach, God is unfair!!!
Help me out people, am I seeing this wrong???
But, immediately follows one of those "affirmations" of the faith we "share"...
I've got to believe that Jesus is the only Savior but being a Christian is not the only way to be saved. A student at Princeton once asked Protestant theologian Karl Barth, "Do you think that other religions can be valid avenues to God and His salvation?" Barth answered, "No! No religion can provide a valid avenue to God and His salvation. Not even the Christian religion. Only Jesus Christ can serve as mediator to God."
See.... HE DOES BELIEVE that Jesus is the only Savior!!!! It's right there!!! He's one of ours, he's no heretic!
Hang on...
Here it is... the big one...
TC: When it comes to what is ultimately important, the Muslim community's sense of commitment to the poor is exactly in tune with where Jesus is in the 25th chapter of Matthew. That is the description of judgment day. And if that is the description of judgment day what can I say to an Islamic brother who has fed the hungry, and clothed the naked? You say, "But he hasn't a personal relationship with Christ." I would argue with that. And I would say from a Christian perspective, in as much as you did it to the least of these you did it unto Christ. You did have a personal relationship with Christ, you just didn't know it. And Jesus himself says: "On that day there will be many people who will say, when did we have this wonderful relationship with you, we don't even know who you are. . . " "Well, you didn't know it was me, but when you did it to the least of these it was doing it to me."
Absorb what you just read! He is now defining what he meant in his first affirmation that a relationship with Jesus WAS necessary. It's a relationship... where you don't even have to know Him or about Him!!!!!!!!
Every person who loves Christ please join me in calling this HERESY!!!!! Are you kidding me???? Someone should have told My wife's great uncle this before he stupidly went to China to procalim that Jeus is the only way and was bayoneted and beaten to death to where his body could hardly be identified. What a stupid fool he was!
As kindly and as gently as I can say these words, Tony Campolo is the fool, not John Birch.
More nonsense...
TC: Speaking of Francis, here's a wonderful story. I got to meet the head of the Franciscan order. I met him in Washington. He said let me tell you an interesting story. He told me about one of their gatherings, where they bring the brothers of the Franciscan order together for a time of fellowship. About eight years ago they held it in Thailand and out of courtesy, they really felt they needed to show some graciousness to the Buddhists, because they were in a Buddhist country. So they got Buddhist theologians together and Franciscan theologians together and sent them off for three days to talk and see if they could find common ground. They also took Buddhist and Franciscan monastics and sent them off together to pray with each other. On the fourth day they all reassembled. The theologians were fighting with each other, arguing with each other, contending there was no common ground between them. The monastics that had gone off praying together, came back hugging each other. In a mystical relationship with God, there is a coming together of people where theology is left behind and in this spirituality they found a commonality.
It seems to me that when we listen to the Muslim mystics as they talk about Jesus and their love for Jesus, I must say, it's a lot closer to New Testament Christianity than a lot of the Christians that I hear. In other words if we are looking for common ground, can we find it in mystical spirituality, even if we cannot theologically agree, Can we pray together in such a way that we connect with a God that transcends our theological differences?
I have no words.
They found mystic Spiritual union????????????????????????????????
How does that work????
Does someone really want to defend this?
It goes on... I simply have to get to bed! Please read it all.
I know my remarks in reponse to their statements are very sarcastic. honestly, I'm really struggling with all of this. I DESPERATELY want to be gracious and loving! I REALLY DO!!!! I just feel that I have sold my soul If I am not righteously indignant at this stuff. I'm searching for the correct and loving way to call an arch heretic an arch heretic.
Maybe we'll stick with the Bible!
ANATHEMA!!!
Peace to all. I'm passionate about this, but I am not angry at anyone here. We probably agree on most of this. Just a thought... If you respond to somethin I misinterpreted of got wrong, please also point out the things these men say that YOU disagree with so I at least know where you stand. Ben, we've both come along way from where we were, I know very little about where you are...
Besides the fact that you're King James ONLY
;)
Just re-read through my posts before calling it a night! A TON of awful typos! Sorry! Looking forward to a continuing discussion.
Ben, In response to your first post ( I havn't read the entire thread yet) It is pretty well known that guys like Brian McClaren have denied the faith with his "generous orthodoxy" idea. John MacArthur has just written a book called "The Jesus You Can't Ignore" which document's Jesus' fighting spirit against false teachers whom He no tolerance for. I recommend you read it along with his other book "The Truth War".
Blessings,
Will
"Believers in Christ’s atonement are now in declared union with those who make light of it; believers in Holy Scripture are in confederacy with those who deny plenary inspiration; those who hold evangelical doctrine are in open alliance with those who call the fall a fable, who deny the personality of the Holy Ghost, who call justification by faith immoral, and hold that there is another probation after death... Yes, we have before us the wretched spectacle of professedly orthodox Christians publicly avowing their union with those who deny the faith, and scarcely concealing their contempt for those who cannot be guilty of such gross disloyalty to Christ. To be very plain, we are unable to call these things Christian Unions, they begin to look like Confederacies in Evil... It is our solemn conviction that where there can be no real spiritual communion there should be no pretense of fellowship. Fellowship with known and vital error is participation in sin.”
Charles Spurgeon
Post a Comment