McLaren and Religions

in

Here's one of the worst things Brian McLaren has said according to many critics.  It's found in A Generous Orthodoxy.

I must add, though, that I don’t believe making disciples must equalmaking adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu or Jewish contexts.

This is a key passage for the Kentucky Baptist Convention who disinvited McLaren from speaking at their evangelism conference (also here).

This is a key passage for Stand to Reason founder and president Greg Koukl, who after quoting the above passage in a blog post then writes...

"Be forewarned. The Emergent Church is the most theologically corrosive view/movement/trend in a long time. The Seeker movement and the "Laughing Revival" of the last decade pale in comparison. And it’s consuming millions, especially young people. We’ll keep you posted."

This is a key passage for Al Mohler in his well-traveled review of aGO where he appears to say this quote brings into question McLaren's commitment to Christian mission in the world.

What does Brian McLaren really mean in this controversial quote?  Here is an excerpt from a recent interview with McLaren.

In an interview last week with Kentucky Baptists' newspaper, The Western Recorder, McLaren suggested the controversy was mainly a semantic one.

"I'm not saying I don't care if people are Christians or not," he said. "I'm saying I want people to be followers of Jesus, but to be a follower of Jesus in some situations may not require them to affiliate with the Christian religion.

"This is a very well-known reality in missiology," he added. "Many Southern Baptist missionaries are building disciples in communities of disciples ... that are meeting in homes or other places, but they are not affiliating with the Christian religion and disaffiliating with their own religion.

"This is especially the case in Muslim countries. They're affiliated as followers of Jesus but for a whole number of reasons, they are not saying, 'I'm an affiliate of the Christian religion.'"

Noting that "there were followers of Jesus before the word 'Christian' was invented," McLaren said, "They were first called Christians at Antioch - so I think we've got a biblical case for people being followers of Jesus without having to use that word.

"The issue," he insisted, "is that people confess Jesus as Lord. I'm interested in helping people actively be disciples of Jesus as Lord."

Read the whole article (HT: Joe Thorn email)

McLaren isn't saying we don't need mission, or that we should let new Christians syncretize.  He is talking about public association among believers in certain contexts.  He is talking about what he thinks is best to be a faithful witness in certain contexts.

As people convert they become disciples, but they may not publicly proclaim their conversion through joining a publicly recognized Christian church.  I used to be on track to go overseas as an SBC missionary.  During that time I heard one young, theologically strong SBC missionary speak who works with Muslims.  I also followed up and talked with him personally after his speech, and then through email later on.  His remarks about new converts is almost exactly the same as McLaren's.

I encourage critics of McLaren to respond to his clarification.  I think it's an important issue because it's such a contested quote.

Andrew Jones to Don Carson

in

Andrew Jones (aka TallSkinnyKiwi) has written an open blog post to Don Carson.  AJ felt he needed to bring some issues up before the publication of Carson's new book: Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church (looks like the publisher has tweaked the book title since last check).  I think AJ poses some great questions and says some things that fly in the face of the critics.

To note...

1. Contrary to critics, important leaders in emergent disagree on theology and ecclesiology, among other things.  Wow, so McLaren doesn't speak for all of emergent?  Shocking.  When are critics going to get this?
2. AJ admits, some emerging churches suck.  Yes, it's true!  Critics can easily find an emerging church that is adolescent, unwise, and immature.  But it seems the traditional church hasn't given us a good model to compare emerging churches to.

Missional Ecclesiology

in

"There is particular urgency today for a missional ecclesiology to reclaim the profoundly eschatological character of the church's calling.  The theological reductionism of both gospel and church has been accompanied, over the centuries, by a great loss of that future tense of faith that should powerfully shape our present life and action.  In place of fruitless speculation about events that have not yet happened, we must focus on the certainty of our hope that enables us now to witness to Christ fearlessly and point away from ourselves modestly.  A missional ecclesiology will always be candid about its penultimate nature; the continuing conversion of the church will necessitate obedient and serendipitous re-visiting of all our theological formulae and propositions.  This does not mean that the gospel is not sufficient to the task; it means that the church lives with the open confession that its grasp of and response to the gospel is always partial, that there is yet more healing to be done, more conversion to submit to, more wonder to worship."

Darrell Guder, "The Church as Missional Community" in The Community of the Word, page 127.

And Their Faces Shone...

in

The trip was a success.  It was the first of what may become an every-semester trip to Southern Seminary to talk to potential church planters.  While we aren't prepared to bring church planters to our suburban Chicagoland association yet, we hope to have a clear vision soon.  So our trip was more about getting ready for future trips than trying to fulfill a current church planting vision.  And we really believe that spending time at Southern has given us clear ideas on how things work and what we want to do.

Random and somewhat boring facts and observations...

It was pretty warm the whole time in Kentucky, but a little rainy Tuesday.  Severe thunderstorms were possible, but didn't come through Louisville.  Bummer.  The trees were far along and the flowering trees were beautiful.

We stayed at the SBTS Legacy Center, which is a beautiful, fairly new addition to the seminary.  Well done.

Southern needs to cut their grass.

While in Louisville, we were spent some time talking with fellow bloggers. 

We met up with Richard and Kyle for some food at the Irish Rover.  It was fish and chips and scotch eggs (a hard boiled egg wrapped in sausage and deep fried...whoa momma).  Conversation was on the local church and the emerging church.

John Mark hung out with us during our seminary cafeteria lunch, which was the time we used to talk with students interested in church planting.  Conversation was on family and the four seasons.

We had some rather tasty barbecue with Wes at Smoky Bones.  Yeah buddy, it was good food.  We couldn't get our waitress to date him.  Conversation was on church planting, the emerging church, blogging, not being able to sing, and all the girls we loved before (sort of).

We had lunch at Stevens & Stevens Deli on the way out of town with friend and Southern Seminary Associate Professor of Christian Theology, Steve Wellum.  Excellent food, great conversation, and we got a tip on a great new book (always a major plus).

I also had a brief word with friend and John R. Sampey Professor of Old Testament Interpretation, Dan Block.  He is headed to Wheaton College this summer and we are very excited about that. 

On TV after nightfall: ultimate fighting and some bad singing from a televised Baptist service in Louisville.

Joe was very sick on Monday, but a lot better by Tuesday.

We discovered that Louisville is basically a black hole of worthless wi-fi.  None at the Starbucks, poor service at other coffee shops (at least on Joe's computer), and unavailable wi-fi from the SBTS library.  Good to be home for real Internet access.  Sheesh.

Heine Brothers makes some good coffee, but their mocha isn't quite as good as Starbucks.

That's all I can think of for now.

Poetry: Brain Food

in

Good article on the goodness of poetry for deep thinking.  We need to read more poetry.

Just a couple of poet suggestions (all guys, sorry): Dana Gioia, Wendell Berry, Ted Kooser, and Li-Young Lee.

Interrogations_at_noonWords
by Dana Gioia

The world does not need words. It articulates itself
in sunlight, leaves, and shadows. The stones on the path
are no less real for lying uncatalogued and uncounted.
The fluent leaves speak only the dialect of pure being.
The kiss is still fully itself though no words were spoken.       

And one word transforms it into something less or other—
illicit, chaste, perfunctory, conjugal, covert.
Even calling it a kiss betrays the fluster of hands
glancing the skin or gripping a shoulder, the slow
arching of neck or knee, the silent touching of tongues.

Yet the stones remain less real to those who cannot
name them, or read the mute syllables graven in silica.
To see a red stone is less than seeing it as jasper—
metamorphic quartz, cousin to the flint the Kiowa
carved as arrowheads. To name is to know and remember.

The sunlight needs no praise piercing the rainclouds,
painting the rocks and leaves with light, then dissolving
each lucent droplet back into the clouds that engendered it.
The daylight needs no praise, and so we praise it always—
greater than ourselves and all the airy words we summon.

- from Interrogations at Noon

The Missional Tim Keller

in

I have been really rocked over the last few days by the words of Dr. Timothy Keller, the Senior Pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in downtown NYC.  I read some of the article below before, but this is a time in my life when they really mean so much more. 

Articles...
The Missional Church - pdf
Post-Everythings
Evangelism through "Networking" -pdf

Audio...
Vision Talks - especially 2004

For more, DJ Chuang has an excellent Keller resource list (though some links didn't work for me).

Mother Churches

in ,

As the EC conversation continues to buzz more loudly in the ears of so many evangelicals, I think statements like this must be just as loud.

The unwieldy, old-fashioned church communities we've emerged from are like mothers--some supportive and helpful; others worn out, not well, depressed; all of them carrying a certain amount of history and baggage with them (because that's the price of growing up).  Of course we should grow up and do our generation's thing.  That's what parents want deep down.  But let's remember to be kind to the mother church--without her we wouldn't be here.

Maggi Dawn in Steve Taylor's The Out of Bounds Church?, page 56.

Where Was God?

in

Roger_powell_pointing_1This is Roger Powell, Jr., or "The Rev" as he is called.  He is a 6-6 senior, licensed minister, and spiritual leader of the Fighting Illini basketball team.  On Saturday Powell prayed at halftime as Illinois took on Louisville in the NCAA semifinals. 

"I really did pray at halftime.  Seemed like it worked, I guess."  Illinois won the game 72-57, thanks in large part to the inspired play of Powell who played one of the best games of his college career with power dunks and three-pointers.  He ends the game by pointing to Jesus.

The final game was played Monday night.  The Illini played very poorly in the first half.  They have rarely played worse.  Illini fans, like me, sat slumped on the sofa unable to choke down another handful of peanuts into our upset stomachs.  Did they come all this way only to get schooled by a very physical and talented University of North Carolina team? 

The second half began and the Illini looked different.  They came back from as many as 15 points down to tie the game.  I went from slumped to jumping and running and screaming for every shot to go in. Whether you love the Illini or not, it was incredible basketball to watch.  Again, it seemed inspired.

Then, as I paced my basement and brushed off my wife's commands to calm down, I watched Illinois lose.  Yep, they lost.  Confetti showered down on embracing UNC players who were crying with joy.  Roger Powell, Jr. and the rest of the Fighting Illini exited the court and slouched in the locker room. 

And the big question should have been, Where was God?  His Word was scribbled all over Powell's shoes (Eph 6:15!).  His praises were on Powell's lips.  And His glory would have been proclaimed in every Powell interview and TV spot in the months to come after an Illini win.  But God didn't need an Illini win to show His Name is great.

I don't know Roger Powell, Jr., but I've read enough articles and heard enough interviews to know this guy really loves Jesus and has committed His life to Him.  I have no doubt in my mind about that.

But God's Name may fare better with a loss.  Until now for the Illini, God has been associated with winning and euphoria for things that should comprise very little places in our lives.  But Jesus' victory on the Cross wasn't all-good.  It took the end of His life for the world to truly live.  It took immediate defeat on the Cross to show He ultimately was victorious over a world of corruption and rebellion. 

There is no better time for Illini-loving Jesus followers.  A win might have been misconstrued as something brought on by a God that believed basketball was as important as die-hard Illini fans.  A loss reminds us that basketball is just a game and God is concerned for much more than the flight-pattern of three pointers.

As the game ended, I found no trace of Roger Powell, Jr. or his now famous finger pointing to Jesus.  I think all believing athletes need to be careful to not point to Jesus as the point guard of their team.  But if the glory goes to Jesus for a win, it must also go to Him for a loss.  And I think I've heard enough from Powell to know that he is still pointing to Jesus even after losing, if only in his own heart. 

Strangely, Powell may have just received one of the most precious gifts of his life: the chance to put the gods of basketball in their place.

Clubbing Seals: Love Your Clubber

in

Sometimes when I'm preaching, an unplanned illustration comes to mind and I go with it.  These are often some of the most helpful thoughts for my own thinking, and I think for those listening as well. 

Last Sunday I let loose with one of those illustrations.  I was talking about perspective, how the way we perceive things dictates how we respond to them.  The idea of clubbing seals (that doesn't mean they are partying) seemed to show this pretty clearly.  Here are some of my thoughts based on this short, off-the-cuff illustration.

When we think of what it means for people to club baby seals for their fur, we often respond with great compassion for the seals and anger for those with the club.  Our response: "This is just wrong."  And I've recently learned that in some places they give out "hunting" licenses so people can experience killing a seal with a blunt object.  This rips my heart out.

But if we change perspectives (I've also written on this idea here and here) and take a moment to think before we respond emotionally, we just might find out that some people who are killing seals are doing it because that's the only way they know of to make a living and provide for their families.  Maybe there are really some people who are just doing the only thing they know to do to keep on living in this world. 

When we see seal clubbing from that perspective, we remember that life is hard for all of us.  We are all trying to put food on the table.  These guys are just like us.  Suddenly we see the world from their perspective and our compassion is fuller, more complete.  If we only work for justice with seals, we will miss working for justice for people who only know the life of the club.

I admit, solutions aren't easy.  But responding only to our first emotion will often just create more problems.  The situation is almost always deeper and more difficult than that.

Jesus' solution was to get in the middle of the problem (incarnation) and become the Solution.  Maybe when we start to think like Jesus, we will truly see how He could die for our sins and put Himself in our place when we are the ones holding the clubs.  And then we will see a world full of club wielding people in a different, more compassionate way.

Research and Criticism

in

So, let's say you are in college and your professor has required a paper on a particular topic.  It's something you don't know much about; you've only heard rumors about it, and a few other random things.  Generally you don't understand it and have to produce a paper that won't get ripped to shreds by your erudite prof.

Now imagine that you decide to write your paper based on an article or two you've read in the news giving opinion (without source citings) and the readings you've done through the first page or two of a Google search.  You peruse the Google hits and read up on a couple of sites and draw your conclusion.  Then you write your paper. 

What kind of grade are you going to get?  What are the odds that an opinion article or two you happened to find and a couple of web hits are going to give the full-orbed understanding necessary to criticize?  I've written dozens of papers for my undergraduate degree and my MDiv, and I would never let my footnotes reflect that kind of shoddy research.  It is wholly inadequate.

Yet I get comments on Reformissionary, Emerging SBC Leaders, in emails, and on other sites telling me what people who consider themselves emergent (or sympathetic to the emerging church) believe based on a news article, a Mohler commentary, and a few websites.  I have an incredible amount of respect for Al Mohler, probably more than most who I've read in the emergent conversation, and I know that Al Mohler will give out some seriously poor grades if you research for a paper the way some research emergent. 

Honestly, and I shouldn't have to keep saying this, I'm critical of emergent too.  There are parts and pieces and people I don't agree with in the conversation.  But if I only talk to people I agree with I will end up with me and a mirror.

I'm up for any number of conversations, disagreements, criticism, whatever.  But rumor or pundit-speak isn't an argument.  Neither is reading weblogs by people you don't know about.  You can find anything on the web, and the earliest hits aren't necessarily good sources, and even the ones that are don't speak for everyone in the conversation.

I encourage comments on this and other blogs.  I encourage disagreement where we feel the truth is compromised.  I don't encourage you to criticize unless you can defend your point.  Otherwise we look foolish, even when we are right.

Gospel as Kingdom

in

I read Mark 1 yesterday.  Mark 1:14-15 says,

Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."

When you ask the typical Christian what the gospel is, I think the usual answer would be that Jesus died for sins and was raised from the dead, and we should repent and believe in Him. 

Gospel, simply stated, is "good news."  We see in Mark 1 that Jesus spoke about the good news long before His death and resurrection.  So is His death and resurrection THE good news, or is the Kingdom the good news? 

Now there isn't any doubt in my mind that to speak of the good news of the Kingdom is to speak of how He brings the Kingdom, through Him being the Lamb of God led to slaughter.  But is Jesus using the good news to identify the means of bringing the Kingdom (death and resurrection) or is He speaking directly to the Kingdom as the good news?

It seems in verses 14-15, the answer is the Kingdom.  He was "proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."

It seems we have let the Kingdom take a back seat to individual salvation.  The individual salvation of sinners is how God populates the Kingdom He establishes in Christ, but the Kingdom is the point.

Thoughts?

From Conversation to Movement

in

I wrote this as a comment earlier, but was encouraged by a close friend to make it a post. 

Everyone keeps throwing their hands in the air over emergent because we evangelicals are taught to look at something, shrink it down to it's essence, find the glaring problems, and then speak out against the problems. Emergent is a conversation that hasn't gelled yet, so it's near impossible to shrink it down, put it under the microscope, and write a paper criticizing it. It includes Catholics, universalists, Calvinists, and all sorts.

It's so hard for people to see that it doesn't have to be something concrete yet, and that's okay for now. 

My take (I could be wrong): it will gel at some point and become a movement. Then it will splinter into different pieces according to more traditional divisions. But the changes it will bring to traditional structures will be crucial, which is why I think the conversation is so important now. 

Why not let it be diverse for now and when the rubber hits the road let us go the ways we feel are most consistent with God's revelation?

What if...

in

What if we, instead of only looking for opportunties to speak about redemption, were looking for opportunities to live redemptively?  It seems so simple, yet it's so hard for Christians to live this way.

Creation Sings

in

This morning was the first morning this year when the first sound I heard as I awoke was a bird singing outside my bedroom window.  I'm thankful I was able to start the day that way: a beautiful reminder of new life after a long Northern Illinois winter.

Mountain Bikers Need Trails

in

Imba_musclesClick on this pic to get the full effect.  If this picture isn't evidence that mountain bikers need trails, there is no evidence.  This is an advertisement from the International Mountain Bicycling Association.

I've been a mountain biker for 4 years now, and ride a full-suspension Giant VT1 modified.  Now that I'm a pastor, and living in the flats of Northern Illinois, it's harder to find and ride trails.  It's hard enough to just stay in shape!  But I'm doing my best to keep up this passion of mine.

Ride on.

Stand to Reason

in

For crying out loud.  I have so many things on my mind that I want to talk about.  I've tried to head toward other topics like music and book quotes on the Trinity, but the onslaught against the emerging church conversation never ends.  And as a good baptist I can't keep my mouth shut.  So I feel compelled, once again, to respond to an online article.  This time, one that links to me.

Stand to Reason, is an apologetics/discipleship ministry that intends to train Christians to defend the faith.  If you know more about StR and want to share more in the comments, feel free.  As for me, I've seen their site before but never felt compelled to spend much time there.  They may be great, who knows?

In a recent post on the StR blog, Brett Kunkle has decided to tackle the never-ending question, "Is Emergent a Conversation or Movement."  I'll draw out a few quotes and respond.

In quoting the Merriam-Webster dictionary, Mr. Kunkle writes,

It defines a conversation as an "oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas" and a movement as "a series of organized activities working toward an objective" or as "an organized effort to promote or attain an end." From these straightforward definitions, does Emergent qualify as a conversation or movement?

Okay, easy enough.  Let's see what he comes up with.

It seems that Emergent has moved way beyond the conversation stage. They have their own books, their own websites, their own conferences, and their own churches. They no longer offer mere sentiments, observations, or opinions.

Lovers of oak trees have books and websites and conferences, but that doesn't mean there is a movement of oak tree lovers.  They just enjoy studying, talking about, and sharing information on oak trees.  Apologists have books and websites and conferences.  Does that mean they have a movement of apologists?  Or are they just continuing a conversation about the faith that needs defending?

These things constitute a conversation that includes observations and opinions.  But what about that pesky fourth thing?  We may have a movement if we see a fleet of churches who are organized and working together to reach objectives and goals.  Uh, where are they?  Where's the denominational headquarters?  Where's the emergent pope or recognized president?  Where's the website that all emergents go to for directions because we all belong to a movement? 

There is no movement, at least not yet.

And having churches that consider themselves emergent or emerging doesn't mean there is a movement.  It means they agree on a word that helps to identify them, and they don't even agree on that.  And one "emerging church" can be very different from another, and yet another.  That makes for a pretty poor organized movement.

These things clearly show the emerging church is a conversation, and only a conversation so far.  But Kunkle continues.

Emergent is working toward a particular objective: to reform the Church. Now, there is nothing wrong with this objective in and of itself. We would certainly want to think carefully about the reforms being proposed by Emergent, but that is a topic for another day. My inquiry here has to do with Emergent’s insistence on being called a conversation rather than a movement.

It should be the work of every church to work for reformation: semper reformanda.  Just because there's a loose knit web of people who have a lot in common because they are talking about some specific reformational ideas to help us reach emerging generations doesn't mean there is a movement. 

And Kunkle ignores the fact that some who consider themselves emerging don't want anything to do with the church as they know it.  They want to start their own churches.  But a number of others want reform.  And some others are skeptical of getting too organized.  This varied understanding of church is the pulse of a conversation, not a movement that has an objective.

The answer may lie in Emergent’s seemingly ultra-defensive posture...when it comes under criticism. It seems to me that this may be a strategy, albeit an unconscious one, to get out from under ANY criticism. A movement with a clear objective ought to be critically examined so if Emergent can successfully label itself a "conversation" then they can deflect any attempt at examination or critique.

Or it could be that it really IS a conversation.  Getting into motive (conscious or not) puts a writer into a highly flammable situation.  I agree, if it's clearly a movement and they try to deflect criticism, there's something very wrong.  But I already showed there's no evidence of a real movement. 

And I would love to see examples of where those in the conversation are unwilling to accept criticism.  I have seen Brian McLaren (for example ) accept criticism like I haven't seen an evangelical do so.  Here is an example.  There is a new blog with a (sometimes too harsh) critique of Emergent.  Those sympathetic with emergent who comment on that site aren't saying they shouldn't be critiqued.  There is dialogue and critique of both sides.  I think the claim that emergent wants to avoid critique is imaginary.  Theories of evasion and unconscious strategy are fun and all, but unproven.

They have offered a clear critique of the current Church, they draw clear conclusions, and they offer a particular direction which they believe the Church ought to move in. For evidence of this, simply pick up any book by a recognized leader of Emergent.

Really?  I've picked some up and read them.  They are thin on clear conclusions and particular directions, but thick on critique and possible suggestions.  They point out possibilities and dreams of the church.  Believe me, I really wish they were clearer on direction and solutions!

So let us set aside any debate over whether Emergent is a conversation or movement and move on to the more important task of carefully and thoughtfully examining Emergent’s views on and proposals for the Church.

You can approach the emerging church conversation any way you like.  But I suggest it's always better to try to understand it before you speak about it.  And Kunkle, like too many evangelicals, doesn't understand much about the emerging church yet.   Maybe this will open up dialogue that will prove fruitful.

Fighting Illini

in

DunkMarch Madness has never felt so good. 

The University of Illinois "Fighting Illini" are continuing to knock off opponents on their way to (dare I say?) a national championship.  Their almost perfect season wasn't a fluke, but the work isn't done.  Their next game is Saturday night against Arizona, and it looks to be a tough one.  As a lifetime Illini fan who grew up an hour from UofI, this is fun.