Brian McLaren today continues his countdown and chat-up of his soon-to-be released book entitled “A New Kind of Christianity”.
Now what kind of person would even suggest Christianity, found in Scripture, breathed of God, is insufficient? What kind of person would suggest that God has ‘better options for us all’ than biblical Christianity?
Such a suggestion is a wicked one.
Mclaren is not espousing a new kind of anything. It’s not even a new heresy. He is however, continuing to conjoin himself to the ancient sin of unbelief, and that is precisely what it is when one rejects the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, as McLaren continues to do. Says McLaren today:
It’s hard to believe that two weeks from today, the new book will be released. From where I sit today, in the Holy Land with all the unholy things happening here, it’s clear that a new kind of Christianity is desperately needed … as are a new kind of Judaism, a new kind of Islam, etc. The kinds of religion that are now dominant in our world are perfectly designed to give us the results we are now getting – in terms of personal transformation, ecological care, peacemaking, and justice for the poor and marginalized. God has better options for us all. (ed. emphasis mine)
God has better options for us all? Better than the Gospel? I think not! To be sure, we are not against the man himself here, but his doctrinal errors.
For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. – Ephesians 6:2 (ESV)
Related Posts:
TransFORM: The Emergent Church In Your Neighborhood
Brian McLaren and the Dangers of the Emergent Church
James MacDonald: Brian McLaren Is A False Teacher & A Danger To Young People
This is sickening.Total McLaren heresy. I wonder what kind of Christianity is he proposing now.Guess he is proposing a better one than the one Christ instituted? hmmmm. I wonder.
McLaren is a total loon!
All of this EC garbage has inspired me to write a song. It is sung to the tune of the popular “Pants on the Ground”. It goes:
Bible on the shelf, Bible on the shelf, Preachers prepare sermons with their Bible on the shelf
Men write books, drama on the stage, lights so pretty but the Bible is on the shelf
Bible on the shelf, Bible on the shelf, guitars and drums go boom but the Bible is on the shelf
Great White Throne and many will cry- we blew our only chance with the Bible on the shelf !
Thanks for indulging me…
T.
That song is great!
Let’s see, McLaren suggests that God has better plans for Christianity (and Judaism and Islam) than fighting over the middle east, and backs this up with a brief but sensible interpretation of the story of Joseph, and you accuse him of defending “‘better options for us all’ than biblical Christianity”?
Sounds to me like he is urging us to be more biblical in how we treat our “enemies,” not less.
Yes I do, and no he isn’t. Thanks for stopping by. – JT
How can a man who denies penal substitution and hell possibly be encouraging anyone to be ‘more biblical’? – JT
Since penal substitution and hell are the most important doctrines in scripture, I presume. Not justice, or mercy, or “deny yourself, take up your cross and follow me,” or “be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect,” or “love the Lord your God with all your heart and mind and soul and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself,” not even “the Word became flesh,” but penal substitution and hell…
Ken,
Thank you for your comments, sincerely. Listen, the substitutionary atonement of Christ Jesus is, in fact, one of the most important doctrines in Scripture, absolutely. You think justice is more important? Penal Substitution is all about that very thing. Check the links within the post, you will see McLaren, in his own words, deny Scripture, it’s doctrine, and it’s authority.
Thanks again, and God bless.
Joel
One of the better options God has for us is a Christianity that speaks the truth, that doesn’t misrepresent other people in the way that you are doing here. McLaren didn’t say God has better options for us than biblical Christianity: that’s you twisting his words — and God does have better options for us than that.
I appreciate that you don’t like what he says: but please don’t do this.
Phil,
Have you read McLaren? Do you view heresy as a bad thing (remember, you do not get to define what is true…the Bible does that)? Another question. Have you read the Bible?
Reading McLaren and the Bible should reveal to you a large disagreement between the two. I am siding with God (He wrote the Bible).
Remember Phil, Hait-Ashbury is over. The flower children are all in the climate change enviro-natzi movement. What makes you feel warm and fuzzy is probably a lie. Man does not make the rules; man does not evolve through liberal feel-good activities like voting for Obama. McLaren, Bell, Pagitt, et al are phonies. They teach a message that is made up. They are the pied pipers leading a group of Pavlovian dogs to the slaughter.
Sorry for the tough love but someone has to do it. Examine the Bible without a Jerry Garcia filter. It tells a much different story than the EC bhagwans are telling…
T.
Dear T.
Thank you for being the first to mention Pavlov on the site. I wish I had a gift waiting backstage, but I don’t. That was a special moment for me.
– JT
Have I read McLaren? Better believe it…
I’ll say no more here: can see the lynch mob approaching. Sad.
Considering all Ken Silva has published about Brian McLaren, I would not be surprised by any departure from Truth that he, McLaren, might pursue.
Great apostasy is amongst us.
Ken Brown and others do not wish to hear the truth. McLaren and his EC cohorts are pushing another ‘gospel’ a.k.a. a broad road plan to make man be his own god.
I have argued with many, many EC faithful for many years now. Usually they will admit that they refuse to worship a ‘God’ who would send someone to hell or a God who allowed injustice to exist in the world. Now, remember that they define ‘sending to hell’ and ‘injustice’ in their own far-left, post-modern way. But the key is this…listen to what they say! They decide for themselves who can and cannot be God! This is nothing but ego-manical humanism.
Now, bringing it back to reality, there are two roads…one narrow and one broad. There is an exclusive gate guarding the entrance to the narrow way. His name is Jesus! Like it or leave it. The Book says it and that settles it!
Libs are stuck to the ceiling right about now. They cannot fathom anyone being dogmatic about truth and the Bible. Get a life, libs! Read the word. Repent and believe.
T.
I guess McLaren is not the only one whose brief comments you folks are willing to read into.
For the record, I am not emergent–I’m a deacon at a Reformed church–and have no particular interest in defending McLaren, of whom I have read very little. I simply cannot stand misrepresentation, and nothing in his post (nor my comment) defends the kind of heresy so many here are accusing him of (and now me, apparently).
Perhaps his books are full of heresy, perhaps he really does reject “biblical Christianity” (however you define that), but the post linked here certainly does not prove it.
We may have to agree to disagree then. Substitutionary atonement is important, but I would vehemently deny that the Scripture pictures Jesus’ voluntary self-sacrifice in our place primarily as a penal substitution, nor that such is in any sense “one of the most important doctrines in Scripture.” Scripture uses many images to indicate the significance of Jesus’ death and resurrection–self-sacrifice, humiliation, exaltation, Pascal sacrifice, cosmic battle, divine enthronement, glorification, reconciliation, purification, and yes, even substitutionary atonement–but “penal substitution” is, at best, one among many, and by no means central.
Then again, I watched the video in your other post, and I largely agreed with McLaren’s comments about forgiveness, so I guess that makes me a heretic.
Ken,
I am trying to figure out where you are coming from spiritually. Do you believe that God has a man-shaped hole in His heart and will not be fulfilled unless we complete Him? Do you believe the Bible is unknowable and must be supplanted by good deeds? Do you believe in a literal God who created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th? Do you believe in the principles of Calvinism (TULIP)? Are there many paths to Heaven or just one?
Thanks. I like to know how people think, especially the people who find folks like McLaren to be believable.
T.
I don’t believe God has a man-shaped hole; I believe God needed nothing and gave us everything by pure grace.
I do not believe the Bible is unknowable, but neither do I believe it is a simple handbook for theology, nor that it represents only a single point of view.
I don’t know what you mean by “supplemented by good deeds,” but I see an awful lot more in Scripture urging us to live for God and not ourselves, than I see urging us to believe the right things about God, the atonement, hell, or any other doctrine.
I’m not sure what “a literal God” is, but I certainly believe that God is real, and the creator of all else that exists. I do not believe he did so in 6 solar days.
There is a lot about TULIP that I would accept, but not all of it, and I certainly don’t see why that theological construct should be the standard by which “orthodoxy” is measured, rather than scripture itself.
I believe there is only one way to God, through Jesus, but I don’t believe it is my job to decide whom Jesus might save.
If you want to clarification on specific points, you are welcome to visit my blog at any time; I’m sure you will find plenty written on most all those subjects (except perhaps TULIP). I’d rather not sidetrack Joel’s comment-thread any further by discussing them here.
Ken,
Thanks for answering. I was just curious. I do not want to clog Joel’s blog either. He has the right to clean out anything he wishes.
Just briefly, I am a little troubled by your “seeing an awful lot more in Scripture urging us to live for God and not ourselves, than I see urging us to believe the right things about God, the atonement, hell, or any other doctrine.” This sounds like pragmatic, feel-good, EC stuff. Almost every book of the NT deals with the importance of holding to proper belief in the truth and avoidance of heresy.
Also, If you do not believe the Genesis account for creation in 6 24-hour days, did God lie? Is He incapable of getting His word delivered to us correctly? I am troubled about this belief of yours as well.
Lastly, TULIP and Calvinism are not a “theological construct should be the standard by which “orthodoxy” is measured, rather than scripture itself.” I never suggested that it was. I was simply curious about your opinion. Scripture alone is authoritative. I believe Calvin was summing up God’s sovereign election in his words and not speaking for God.
Thanks again. T.
Who would suggest a different gospel? About anybody nowadays it seems. A gospel including but not limited to, a Better You Now, Ragamuffin, Barbarian Way, Revolution, Velvet Elvis, Purpose Driven, Shack, Perspective- social/politcal, psychological, you name it anything goes gospel that gives us anything but the clear message of Gods holy word. New gospels for itching ears can make one filthy rich. Or should I just say filthy? Jim
Wow! I am reading what the majority of you have to say regarding Brian McLaren, and one thing sticks in my mind: Just what is “biblical Christianity?” Is it what is practiced now in America? No. Is it what was being practiced in the 1st century A.D.? Maybe, but probably not. I think you should all look at what it means to truly be “biblical” and then start throwing your sticks and stones. Let me throw out some questions to you all so as to better illustrate my point: for you “KJV Onlyists” – is the KJV the only authentic word of God? No, but you think it is because that is what you’ve been taught, and what you’ve (somewhat blindly) accepted. How about this – Are Calvinism and Arminianism biblical? Both are, somewhat, but both also take away from essential elements of the character of God. Here’s another one for you: are all sins equal? If you said “Yes, of course!” then you would probably be in the majority, but you would also be incorrect, because Scripture tells it differently – yes, that’s right, not all sin is equal. And here’s something more current: do you agree with Pat Robertson’s take on why Haiti is in the state that it’s in? Although Idisagree with Mr. Robertson, his point can be biblically supported according to his interpretation of some portions of Scripture. So then how/why can I disagree with him? Because there are other portions of Scripture that also have to be accounted for, and a proper hermaneutic incorporates all Scripture into its doctrine.
Okay, I think I’ve rambled on enough. For now, I will leave by saying that the majority of you need to be discerning and separate the “dogmas” of Scripture from the peripheral issues.
Thanks,
ST
Good to hear another voice challenging the dogmatism, Sandy: thank you.
Anyone who has read McLaren knows full well that his approach is every bit as biblical as those who oppose him. The difference is that McLaren is reading the written word, watching the living Word at work in the world and interpreting the written word in that light.
The criticisms being levelled against the “emerging church” are much the same as the criticisms levelled against the early church as it, in it’s turn, emerged from the Judaism of its day. God is moving on and we must follow where he leads. Let those who have ears to hear, hear.
Phil,
I’m sad to hear your thoughts. You are in the mist of the man-centered “I will believe in a god that I can create and control” crowd. Break out of the mist and come into the clear light of scripture. You see, it is scripture that is God breathed- not Mclaren’s spin of what he thinks a loving God really meant to say…
Phil, it seems that most of the EC people I have read (McLaren, Pagitt, Bell, Jones) simply do not believe in God. They have created a liberal feel-good god of their own that serves them.
Anyway, I challenge you to read the Bible alone for one year. Do not filter it through a man-centered filter. It may just change your life because you may meet the real God.
BTW, your seeing the EC as some kind of martyred representation of the first (REAL) church is appalling. I pray that God forgives you for this blasphemy.
T.
Phil,
McLaren’s ‘approach’, by his own words in his own videos, is to deny the biblical doctrines of hell and penal substitution. To deny either is to deny the teachings of Christ Jesus. To deny the substitutionary atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ is to assault the very foundations of Christianity.
Please understand, this post is not to attack on Brian McLaren, but to point out erroneous doctrine being taught by him. Thanks for your comments.
Joel
True believers in Christ have got to be discerning people. “…that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting…”Ephesians 4:14
Every body who says, “Lord, Lord,” is not a believer! Remember Christ said, “We should know them by their fruit.”
Just for the record, I can find many reformed pastors who publish sermons, articles, etc. where I find certain points to be bordering on heresy, or, at the very least, present a problematic view of God’s character. I DON’T just call them heretics, because I believe that if they are truly in Christ, they, like you and I, are being refined each and every day.
To the Truthinator: I have to say that just because someone doesn’t believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2 does not make them a heretic. Your questions (ie: “Does God lie?”) are simply immature and un-academic. I know of many God-fearing people who read these chapters in different ways from myself, and I would never call them heretics. Yes, it is commanded for us to be discerning, but I really wish that in our discernment we could all be a bit more accepting of the views of other believers that differ from our own.
And now to apparently contradict myself:
To Jim Bagbey: I think you are quite wrong if you lump Young and Claiborne in the same boat as Osteen. Osteen, Copeland, Hagin, Hinn et al are all heretics in the truest sense of the word, as the Jesus that they worship is NOT the Jesus reflected in the NT, nor is their understanding of the character and nature of God anything close to the orthodox or historical understanding of God’s character and nature. I, for one, do not see Young and Claiborne deviating from this as the Health/Wealth/Prosperity teachers do.
Blessings.
Sandy,
I would be interested to hear what your definition of ‘heretic’ is.
You said: “I have to say that just because someone doesn’t believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2 does not make them a heretic.”
Denying the Genesis creation account as literal and historical fact is a denial of God’s Word:
For the record, you may wish to consider the New Testament usage of Genesis:
1. There are at least 165 passages in Genesis either directly quoted or clearly referred to in the NT. Many referred to repeatedly.
2. There are more than 100 direct quotations/direct references to Genesis 1-11 in the NT.
3. Every one of the NT authors referred to Genesis 1-11, and not once is there any indication that they regarded them as anything other than absolute literal/historical people and events.
4. On at least 6 occasions, Jesus Himself quoted from /alluded to either events or people in the first 7 chapters of Genesis, and not once as a myth, poetry or allegory.
You may disagree with the NT usage of Genesis 1-11 as literal and historical, but you will never find anything being alluded to other than literal and historical.
To hold the position that Genesis 1 & 2 is anything other than literal/historical, is to place oneself in league with the liberal, evolutionary camp which denies God’s clear revelation of His power from Genesis to Revelation. In short, I believe if you deny Genesis 1 & 2 as anything but factual, historical and literal, you are denying the claims of God Himself and His apostles, and His only begotten Son, the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
The Word of God rejects all other teachings and beliefs as falsehood.
Joel
Sandy,
You forgot to call me a pharisee… Uh, help me, Sandy. If someone does not believe in a literal interpretation of Gen 1&2 they are not a heretic…? Then what are they (unacademically speaking, of course)?
If you do not believe Gen 1&2 or anyother part of the Bible that was written literally to be literally true, then you are also an unbeliever. God is either a liar, incompetent, or nonexistant.
I think anyone who tries to defend McLaren is walking on shaky ground due to his pantheistic universalist gobblygook beliefs. But more than being concerned about the pied piper, I am concerned about those who try to defend his jello ‘theology’.
Sandy, I suggest you not assume we discerndamentalists are all bad guys and compare what we say to what the Bible teaches (a real Bible, not a bunch of liberal paraphrases). Then compare McLaren to the Bible. Pray for God to open your eyes. Peace.
T.
“discerndamentalists”? Now, did you just make that up, or is that first-century terminology?
*sigh* … if there’s one thing God does have better options for us over, it’s the sort of folly I’m witnessing here, Christians bashing one another over the head with their versions of the truth whilst the world around us perishes: “See, how these Christians love one another…”
Christ crucified publicly all over again. May Christ have mercy on his messed up, self-harming, God-crucifying bride…
Phil,
You may see this as folly and as bashing and that is sad. I see it as warning people to come out of falsehood and into the truth. Sort of like the people in the Bible did under the command of God almighty. You may believe you can create your own reality but I wish to warn you of your folly. Come out of McLaren’s mist and enter the true light which is the real Jesus of the real Bible.
T.
Joel, I am not referencing Gen 1-11, only Gen 1 & 2. Now, the only point I disagree with you is when you stated: “if you deny Genesis 1 & 2 as anything but factual, historical and literal, you are denying the claims of God Himself and His apostles, and His only begotten Son, the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” Now, if you actually knew me, you would probably come to the conclusion that I am not a liberal; that being said, I enjoy engaging with critical biblical scholarship…have you ever tried this? (Please do your best to give me an honest answer, and not one based in propaganda and immaturity ie: “I didn’t read The Shack, but I know it’s bad…”)
Now, I think your definition and my definition of ‘heretic’ are different…have a look at this definition –> Heretic: a dissenter from established religious dogma; one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine.
I, personally, do not think that a “different” view of Gen 1 & 2 impugnes or changes the character and nature of God. And also, let’s remember that we are all a “work in progress,” and that some people need to legitimately wrestle through these issues; let’s not bury our heads in the sand when it comes to engaging with honest biblical criticism and scholarship.
Sandy
Truthinator:
Would it surprise you to find out that I don’t support McLaren?
I don’t support him, and I don’t support you either. I am a follower of Jesus Christ, and I have read enough historical theology to recognize when something is culture-centric and ethno-centric. I believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible where it is to be taken literally (ie: poetic devises like imagery and metaphor are to be read as such), but I will not condemn and crucify those who attempt to engage with proper biblical criticism and research. You remind me of a young aspiring pastor who condems women who don’t wear head coverings in church, and insists that their faith is on a tight-rope. He, like you, refuses to hear any other side to a discussion. Have you even read anything by McLaren or Campolo? I’m sure you also condemn Wm. Young and The Shack, but I’ll bet you haven’t even read it.
I would even venture to say that you probably support those “well-meaning” Christians who shot doctors who perform abortions…am I right? How about Rev. Phelps? Do you subscribe to his blog, too?
And in case you’re wondering, I am not angry, but rather frustrated at the myopic judgementalism that I see all over this blog.
ST
Sandy, McLaren denies the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ, and the doctrine of Hell. That alone ends the discussion. McLaren needs to repent of his heretical teaching, and come to the truth. That is what ‘this site’ is all about, Truth. No one is ‘being crucified’ here -rebuked? reproved? correction? – absolutely, when necessary. Please refrain from insults to others, ok? Thanks.
- JT (the other one)
Wow, Sandy…all that fuming and you still forgot to call me a pharisee. You think you know me pretty well despite not knowing me at all. How unacademic of you.
But seriously, I fear for your ‘being a follower of Christ’ and being in defense of McLaren, the Shack, and other such nonsense. These are not consistent. It appears you are being convicted by what you have read here. Call out to God and ask for Him to explain the scripture to you. Peace out.
T.
JT,
I was unaware that McLaren denies the doctrine of Hell and the substitutionary atonement of Christ. As such, he is deserving of rebuke and reproof. Maybe I am just overly sensitive, but I think there is some undue harshness in some of these posts. For the record, I think that many of the previous posts have been insulting in their language and insinuations (ie: to guys like Phil)…as such, I was just “playing the game” that was already established by the previous players.
Another point: let’s say, then, that McLaren and the EC folks are all heretics — O.K. now what? They are obviously not of the elect, and you have made your point, so why doesn’t everyone who disagrees with the EC just move on?
To deviate just a bit: are there any non-reformed pastors or theologians that you respect as true believers? Please be honest in your answer, and if you can, please tell me why you feel the way you do (regarding your answer).
ST
Actually, McLaren doesn’t deny the doctrine of hell and substitutionary atonement: this is misrepresentation again. We’re dealing with a much more nuanced position than that.
McLaren certainly challenges the traditional interpretations of those doctrines — but the reality is that he dares to read scripture with an enquiring mind rather than through the narrow lens of Reformed theology… and anyone who reads scripture with such an open mind will find — as McLaren and I have both found, entirely independently please note — not black and white or even shades of grey but a rainbow spectrum of hope in the God who promises so much more than judgement and wrath…
Our God is a God of love; and mercy triumphs over judgement.
You’ve swallowed a lie my friend. Please see this and the related posts, and thanks for stopping by.
Brian McLaren & The Dangers Of The Emergent Church
Phil,
Ken Silva has a good review of the poison being spewed forth by Brian McLaren on this post: http://apprising.org/2010/02/26/christianity-today-review-of-a-new-kind-of-christianity-by-brian-mclaren/
Truthinator,
I do not feel a hint of conviction by what you, or anyone here, have written. Have I, perhaps, hit something in my questions to you? I see that you have not answered them. I reiterate: have you read The Shack?
Now it’s true, I do not know you, but I know your ‘type’ (and academics have nothing to do with it), and I find Believers of your type to be somewhat problematic in congregations ie: no grace given to those who disagree, a complete and utter unwillingness to engage in a positive way with others who disagree with you…I could go on and on. Here’s a pointer in your next theological discussion: Why don’t you truly try and be salt to other Believers, and work with them as they mature in the faith (just a suggestion).
And I reiterate my previous question: Would it surprise you to find out that I don’t support McLaren? I do not, but you constantly assume that I do. Please stop this.
Thank you.
ST
Phil, thanks for the clarification. I appreciate what you have said, and I think that you and I would have some engaging conversations in a neighbourhood coffee shop if we ever met up.
I, like you, have come to some conclusions regarding Scripture that don’t follow the Reformed party line, and I think that there are some ideas out there that are quite refreshing (although many have already been put forth throughout history).
ST
Sandy,
One last thing. You can do whatever you want but please hear me out. It is totally hilarious that you were accusing me of not being well-read and judgemental and as it turns out- you are not well-read and you have been very judgemental about things you admit not to know much about… (re: Jt’s post to you and yours in reply to him)
Look, just because Phil agrees with you does not make either of you correct. JT and the others of us are not correct just because we agree, it is the fact that we are in agreement with what the Bible teaches that matters. You apparently do not believe and wish to side with those who out and out deny truth (therefore calling God a liar). There is no truth in the EC. Read up on it and you may see this for yourself… I wish you well but please, learn what you are talking about before you accuse others of not knowing their stuff. You have looked rather foolish thus far. Peace out.
T.
Well, T, I disagree on a number of points:
1) I don’t think that I have looked foolish…but I think that it boosts your over-sized ego to think that I have
2) I have read a lot of McLaren et al…to say that I was “unaware” of a point or two does not make me “not-well-read”…as I said, I have simply never come across McLaren’s denial of Hell and the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and as it turns out (if Phil is correct), you and the others are mistaken about this
3) I was merely being honest as to not having come across McLaren’s alleged denial of these doctrines, and you call me foolish and not well-read? What’s next? You’re going to argue that your car is faster than my car?
4) Lastly, you are nothing but an ego-driven, judgemental person who needs to be humbled through a “road to Damascus” experience. As such, I refuse to call you by your moniker on this blog, as I see/sense only shards of truth but volumes of ego.
My prayer is that when God decides to humble you, he gives you more mercy than you have given other Believers and non-believers.
ST
I’ve given you links to McLaren’s denials of penal substitution and the doctrine of hell Sandy. Don’t say “I’ve never come across” them, because, you have !
Brian Mclaren & The Dangers of the Emergent Church
T, one more thing: why do you not answer any of the questions that I pose in my posts?
ST
me thinks thou protesteth too much… Why are you kicking against the goads of conviction, Sandy? You are trying to save face via self-righteous indignation but it ain’t working. You cannot even see what you are doing to yourself. You are trying to talk from all sides of each issue. Unfortunately, this is common for liberals and Ecers and the like. I trust you are not one of them…?
You know you have no intellectual real estate upon which to build a soup kitchen. Why don’t you call out to God for understanding and take in what the real Bible (not message bible) teaches? Study reformed theology also. It will help you. Thanks and good-day, mate.