(resonance of reforming) » Brian McLaren

Posts tagged Brian McLaren

…telltale

1

Current Tunage: As Cities Burn – Into The Sea
3 New Songs Up On Their Myspace! GO!

James MacDonald (that dude you hear on Walk in the Word, better known as the dude that started up Harvest Bible Chapel and Harvest Bible Fellowship) recently made a post on his “Straight Up” Blog that essentially labelled Brian McLaren a heretic for his publicly expressed views on hell, the atonement, and the authority of Scripture. I’ll be the first to express my agreement with James – having recently finished my copy of Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be), which, despite its poor choice of subtitle, was by far the best critique on the Emergent church and its patriarchs I’ve come across. The need to clearly point out false teaching and false teachers is more vital now than ever before thanks to how quickly and how subtly their messages can be spread and propagated thanks to technology.

Anyways, I want to highlight what I feel was the most important part of James’ post – the part where he addresses those who surely will (and surely have) risen up to call him out for publicly labelling McLaren a heretic:

“Let those who complain about naming false teachers state how Jesus and the apostles were wrong to confront those in error, personally and publicly, in their time. If they cannot do so, let them show that what we name as false teaching is, in fact, the truth. If they cannot do either, then let their mouths be stopped.”
-James MacDonald, The Public Rebuke of False Teachers

Incidentally, or perhaps more… Ironically, none of the critical responses that James has received (at least those that were able to be posted – and some were thoughtful) has actually addressed these two challenges – proving that the “false teaching” is in fact true, or proving that Jesus and the apostles were wrong to publicly confront those in error.

I’m thankful James has done this, for a number of reasons, but perhaps most of all because he didn’t just go sniping at McLaren, but articulated why McLaren is a false teacher, and then provided his opponents with the logical counterarguments they would need to take up to address his accusation of heresy.

…second reformation part one

1
THE SECOND REFORMATION
[part one: introduction]

Welcome to my first proper blog series, entitled “The Second Reformation”. A heavy title, if ever there was one. I don’t claim to be the new Martin Luther… far from it! There are much better contenders to take up that mantle. Some of them were instrumental in shaping and influencing my thoughts of late as I have struggled with some questions; some troubling, “preoccupying questions”. These questions have formed the basic root of what I hope to address in this series. I will share them with you shortly.

In his 2007 book Everything Must Change, author Brian McLaren began with his own set of troubling, “preoccupying questions”. I won’t go into much detail about McLaren or his book here, as that’s not my aim. I probably won’t surprise anyone reading this by saying that I’m really not much of a fan of his work. As best as I can discern, the book is an attempt to re-cast and re-new his reader’s understanding of what it is and what it looks like when we follow Jesus Christ. No small or insignificant task.

McLaren approached this task by setting a foundation of two “preoccupying questions” which have formed the basis from which the book issued forth. Respectfully, they are:

01. What Are the Biggest Problems in the World?
02. What Does Jesus Have to Say About These Global Problems?
Brian McLaren, Everything Must Change pp. 11-12)

I can agree with McLaren’s title with one addition: A subtitle. It should read “Everything Must Change (But God)”. Brian McLaren attempts to deal with real, difficult issues, but he starts in the wrong place – both of his questions are human-centric. From the language of his second question (labelling the problems as “Global”), it doesn’t take an expert in modern textual criticism to gather that he feels the biggest problems in the world are the ones that affect “everything” – or, perhaps, everybody? At first, this seems sensible… after all, aren’t the most important problems the big ones that affect everybody?

I’m inclined, after getting past “at first”, to disagree.

After all, who is Brian McLaren? Who gave him the knowledge, understanding, and authority to decide what the “Biggest Problems in the World” are? To the best of my knowledge, the answer to both is “nobody”. The same is true of me.

Before I get into the difficult bits of unravelling my grey-matter about subjects to which I’m probably not qualified to wax prosaic, I have something very deep and important to admit: I’m nobody. Consequently, what I think the big problems of the world are is rather irrelevant.

Therefore, here are my troubling, preoccupying questions, which form the basis of everything I hope to touch on from this point:

00. Who is God?
01. What Does He Say the Biggest Problems Are?
02. What Does He Say is My Responsibility?

I feel it’s important to set the stage in this way because otherwise it’s too easy for me to give commentary and amusing detours without really accomplishing much. Nothing I can say about my topics will really mean much unless I’m building on a firm foundation of who God is and what He has revealed to us in His Word(s).

Allow me to expand on my first question:

00. Who is God?

Without intending to avoid the most important question of all, I feel this one is best answered elsewhere. Most of my readership knows what I believe and (hopefully) why I believe it, but for the sake of reference, I generally align myself with the Reformed Theological tradition and the Doctrines of Grace. I believe that God is real and that He has revealed as much of Himself as we can handle in His Word, the Bible. Inclusive in that, I believe that He has also revealed Himself most completely when He came in the person of Jesus Christ and that the Bible gives us the fullness of what we need as to His story. Specifically, I believe that all of History hangs on the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Christ – all of these capture the heart of Scripture, which is that God’s primary aim is always to bring glory to Himself. I believe that there is far more to God than is in the Scriptures, but that they give us everything we need – thus anything beyond that is mystery and intended as such.

In short, and very generally, I believe in the evangelical distinctives and orthodox tenets of the Christian faith inasmuch as they belie a careful and Spirit-led understanding of the Scriptures. There is no one writer or person who has it all correct, and anyone who claims to is probably very far off the mark. That being said, my influences have included such men (past and present) as John Piper, Mark Driscoll, CJ Mahaney, CH Spurgeon, JI Packer, Francis Schaeffer, Timothy Keller, DA Carson, and many others. I don’t agree with any one of them in all areas, but I agree with all of them in some areas.

I think that’s healthy, and I could be wrong. For the most part, my theology isn’t up for grabs and is the result of years of studying, hearing, and seeing God’s word interact with myself and many others. It will always be evolving in some aspects as I learn and grow and study and see more of life and Scripture. Essentially, though, this is where I’m at, and will be at.

If you aren’t familiar with this understanding of God, either from a Christian perspective or from that of someone who is “outside” and has no idea what half/all of what I just said means, I would point you in a few directions (which tend to have the same endgame):

First, a presentation of The Gospel by Mark Driscoll.

Second, a general plug for the views shared on these fine websites: Desiring God and Mars Hill. There are loads of other good resources, but those are a good starting place if you have no idea where I’m coming from.

That about wraps up the most basic foundation of all that is to come – after all, what we think about God is our most defining characteristic as human beings. If you (for the most part) share in my beliefs about who God is (or even if you don’t really agree about the whole Reformed theology bit, but are on board with “The One True God is the God of the Bible and He revealed Himself as Jesus”), then I invite you to join me for what is to come.

And here is what is to come, what I’ve promised to write about, and what I’ve been delving through these past few months (years?):

01. What Does He Say the Biggest Problems Are?

There are many things God lays out in His Word, the Bible, as being “Big Problems”. Things such as my Sin and all the myriad branches and effects thereof, the World I inhabit, and many other things. Most likely, all of them will touch and affect the one I’ve chosen to discuss (revealed in a few lines!).

02. What Does He Say is My Responsibility?

This is kind of what we’re all getting at: What do we do when we know things are broken and messed up and definitely “not what they ought to be”? What am I supposed to do/think/pray/feel/be about this? And so on.

I believe, along with many of you, and maybe even Brian McLaren (ha!), that right now – perhaps even all the time, one of God’s biggest “problems” is the Church, both local and universal. It is my intent to explore this topic of Ecclesiology (the study of the Church) through the utilization of these two questions applied to it:

01. What Does God Say the Biggest Problems with the Church are?
02. What Does He Say is My Responsibility?

It is my intent over the coming weeks and months to delve into these questions. For my sake and yours, and most of all for the Glory of God.

The title of this series is going to be “The Second Reformation”. I’ve named it that because, as we’re about to explore together, I believe that a second reformation of the Church is coming, probably within my lifetime (assuming that, Lord willing, I live for a normal lifetime). The first Protestant Reformation saw a reformation of theology, doctrine, and organization revolving around the five “Sola’s”: Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solus Christus, and Soli Deo Gloria. The coming Second Reformation, I believe, will build on that foundation – once again reforming the church, this time reforming Protestantism itself, which in the West and elsewhere has become just as faulty, unbiblical, and often counter-productive for Christ as the “Catholic” church of Europe was in its time. Its emphases will be the same, but with additions. Once again, theology, doctrine, and organization will play a primary role. This time, however, there will be a variety of new elements of church which receive the reformation treatment: methodology, missiology, worship-ology (is that a word?), and various other smaller aspects. It will serve as a reaction in some ways to both the “emergent church” conversation/movement, as well as the “house church” movement, though (despite the role those two movements will play as touchpoints) hopefully not a complete pendulum swing to either. There’s a lot of things it might be, and some of it may not happen yet. I’m no prophet, just a nobody… and “The Second Reformation” is, I think, a fitting and perhaps subtly self-deprecating title. In truth, I might as well entitle it “The Second Trillionth Reformation” since, through sanctification, we are reformed daily and even “second-ly”. I’ll never live up to the heights of its demands, but hopefully this title will spur both you and I on to following and serving Christ as a part of His church more effectively, efficiently, faithfully, actively, and sacrificially for His glory. May the Reformation begin in my heart and yours.

…when my mind is frozen

3

Current Tunage: Celldweller – Frozen
So cold.

I have fun when the topic of discussion is something related to emergent theology.

See as reference:
Post: Queer Theories
and
Post: Theory in Practise

I haven’t been able to write much at all since school ended. Part is being busy, part is writing burnout, part is not having much to say – or nothing much to say stuff about.

Today I’ll say a few things some of you might want to interact with. First, I’ll give you referential links to the stuff and/or people I refer to:

First, a set of videos detailing Rob Bell’s recent time on a panel at the “Seeds of Compassion” conference, where he basically said stuff you could just as easily have heard from Oprah (note: I was dissapointed, but unsurprised given I’ve read Bell’s books, seen most of the Noomas, and loosely kept up with much of what he’s been saying for the past couple years). Doug Pagitt was also on the panel at this conference – he comes up in the convo.

Second, Mark Driscoll’s Sermon on the Emergent Church. Which basically summed up everything that’s good in some branches of it, and the rest (most of it) that’s really out there and wrong.

That being shared, here’s my thoughts, from an instant message conversation I had today about the “Emergent Trinity” (Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, and Doug Pagitt):

Jer: These are good guys, they’re just wrong… they’re not evil, they mean well, they’ve just missed some important things. I was watching a vodcast by Doug Pagitt today – he’s one of the other guys Mark mentioned along with Bell & McLaren. He was going on and on about some interfaith conference he was on a panel for with the dalai llama and desmond tutu and stuff. I just kept thinking “what about Jesus? any mention of him?” They all seem very genuine, but they’re missing out.

Friend: Yeah, sometimes wonder if we’re missing it too.

Jer: Yeah, fallibility. I don’t blame them for being so fluid about things.

Friend: Big word.

Jer: Fallibility is the recognition that we’re fallible…

Friend: That we aren’t perfect?

Jer: We’re good at being wrong, basically. Good at misinterpreting, misunderstanding, etc. But, and this is where i think they go off track, at some point our human fallibility meets God’s divine infallibility. He’s given us a book to communicate truth to us, and somehow, our fallibility must at some point be overcome, even if only in small ways, particularly through his book, if not exclusively. Check this:

1 Corinthians 2:12-16 ESV
Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

Ephesians 4:17-24 ESV
Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. But that is not the way you learned Christ!– assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

Jer: When I listen to Rob Bell, I mostly hear Oprah.

Friend: Humanism, not Christianity.

Jer: Well, humanism masquerading as christianity… or at very least… at very very least, a destructive overemphasis on fallibility. In other words, my biggest problem with emergent is that they make fallibility the core and staple of their theology. Human fallibility is an important factor, to be sure. But the core ought to be Christ and all that He is, not us and all that we aren’t. Simply changing that core would transform their theology overnight – hence, why mark driscoll called them out to repent.

Jer: Its a reverse humanism. Since human fallibility isn’t exactly what humanists would normally be celebrating – if you catch my drift. It’s reverse humanism because in making their own fallibility the primary means of interpreting scripture, they make the human being superior to God… who the Bible tells us will enlighten our minds to understand his Word (as we looked at a minute ago). Its a trade, a mistake, and an easy error to overlook because it looks pious and righteous. But really, it’s just an overemphasis on one factor, not unlike the legalism or westernization or whatever it is that emergent is trying to emerge out of.

Jer: Most heresies and theological errors come out of some simple, often overlooked, root error – and with a quick nod to Radical Depravity we can assert that those errors will, one way or another, take the focal point of glorification off of Christ and place it elsewhere. In this case, making the most important factor in the interpretation of Scripture our human imperfection and fallibility instead of making it Christ and his perfect holiness which more than compensates for our fallibility as he indwells us.
/endrant

Nothing too far-fetched, I hope. I’m interested what others think though. As you’ve read, I think that the big deal with emergent is that they shift the core of their faith to themselves (particularly their imperfection) rather than Christ who is supposed to be at the center of true faith.

Obviously, also, there’s a lot of other topics this brings up. I’m up for any of the above.

Go to Top