What we have here is a failure to communicate
Again, we have an example of the watch doggies’ complete inability to understand anyone outside of their own context. First, a quote from McLaren:
“I am an atheist when it comes to the view of the chosen few, who judge and condemn all who differ (sic) them.â€
Now, how would you interpret that view? Perhaps that McLaren doesn’t believe in the kind of God that the watch doggies claim is out there? The kind of God that condemns people to hell for not using organs in worship, and who expects his followers to act like complete jerks at all times? Would that seem reasonable? I think so.
Instead this interpretation is offered up:
Presumably he would be referring to those who point to the Scriptures and say, “Wait a minute, Brian! How can you not believe in hell when Jesus spoke so often of a literal place where the fire is never quenched?â€
What? Talk about a non-sequitur. Where do you get that at all?
Are we even dealing with people who are capable of understanding anyone other than someone who thinks exactly like them? The more I observe them in their natural habitat, the more I doubt it.
Update:
More evidence that the watchdoggies have no idea what they’re talking and writing about.
In a small way I do kind of feel sorry for apologists, such as they are, for the Emergent Church when they have to defend Brian McLaren and his deep skybala. For you see, McLaren is beyond question a leading theological Guru in the emerging church, and when he does stuff like you’ll witness below it has just got to be like a living nightmare for guys like Dan Kimball and Erwin McManus. Because you don’t get to go emerging without your McLaren.
Uh…. what? Emerging/emergent Christians aren’t a group rallying around an individual. While McLaren was a big part of bringing emerging/emergent ideas into the mainstream, he’s not the guy who founded it, invented it, or is so fundamental to it that if he calls it quits the whole thing comes down. For those that have been paying attention McLaren has become, really, a marginalized figure, at least compared to what he once was. My feeling is that shortly after A Generous Orthodoxy (coincidently the same time he left his position at Cedar Ridge) he became far more of a figure head than someone who is actually directing and moving the ideas of the emergent/emerging church.
But of course the watchdoggies don’t really understand anything other than themselves, so when they write something incredibly stupid like, “you don’t get to go emerging without your McLaren” we shouldn’t really be surprised.
August 7th, 2007 at 8:02 am
MacLaren loves to be controversial and provocative. However, he gives ample evidence of being less than orthodox in many areas so defending him is “at your own risk”.
Hardly ever a clear, Biblically understood teaching. His moniker is being mircurial. Beware of those who would lead you away from the simplicity that is in Christ.
August 7th, 2007 at 8:24 am
I know I will probably take flak for this, but I picked up The Voice of Acts, which is McClaren’s translation of Acts, and have liked what I’ve read so far. Some of his comments were actually pretty insightful, honestly. Anyway, I think people are too scared of him. I’ve read pretty much all of his books, and there’s been only a few things that caused me some concern.
I guess it’s mainly his stance or non-stance on homosexuality that seems to cause people to get mad. Also, the second book of the New Kind of Christian trilogy is pretty pro-theistic evolution, so that could tick off a bunch of people. The third book of that series which talks about Hell also caused an uproar.
I guess it depends on what you think his reason for writing is. I see him as more of philosopher, teacher rather than an apologist.
August 7th, 2007 at 8:36 am
Phil - his “stance” on homosexuality only concerns me as it applies to his understanding of the nature of Scripture. The main concern I have is his hinting, sometimes strongly, at some form of universalism. The thought that anyone can be saved without hearing and embracing the gospel is much more than provocative, it jars the core of Biblical teaching.
I hate using homosexuals as the whipping boys for what is the nature of Scripture. But the gospel, to whom it is given, the uniqueness of the atonement, and the faith of salvation are issues that cannot be compromised.
Let us indeed do works of compassion (feed the poor, etc.) but let us never insist that Jesus’ mission was inherant in those. “To seek and to save” was the redemptive essence of His mission. The humanitarian works He did was to reveal His nature and Who He was. It is the work of the Spirit, but Jesus Himself told us that the Spirit would descend to empower US to go.
God has chosen His followers as His conduit.
August 7th, 2007 at 8:56 am
Henry,
Does it matter that we have profound disagreements with someone if their view is deliberately misrepresented? Should we sic Ingrid et al. on people who aren’t orthodox enough for us? I’d even stick up for the execrable (at least on religious issues) Christopher Hitchins in that circumstance.
But that’s not even the bigger issue. What McLaren was communicating was pretty clear, and yet Ingrid still couldn’t understand it. The point is that all the watch doggies come from the same point of view. They have lock stop doctrinal views, the culture they live in are exactly the same, and the way they communicate is exactly the same. And all of them completely and totally lack the ability to understand anyone who is not like them.
This post had almost nothing to do with McLaren, he just happened to be the latest example of this in a long string of examples.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Henry,
I understand people’s concern about some of his views. However, I guess my point would be that it seems to me that God uses imperfect vessels to speak prophetically to the Church. A lot of what McClaren says is true, and the Church needs to hear it. Just because he may be wrong about some things does not mean we should ignore everything he has to say.
By the way, he pretty much takes a stand against Universalism is that book, but people seem to ignore it. I think his view of Hell, in the end, is pretty much restating C.S. Lewis’ position. It’s pretty much that a person who spent a lifetime resisting God and whose character is far from God’s, could never spend eternity enjoying His presence.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:56 am
“I am an atheist when it comes to the view of the chosen few, who judge and condemn all who differ (sic) them.â€
I believe there are several ways “the chosen few” could be interpreted
1) those who believe in hell
2) those who believe homosexuality is a sin condemned by God for which God has all power to forgive and help the person turn away
3)those who treat their Bible, all of it, as God’s Word
4) those who have other major differences of opinion than Mclaren and company and are willing to express them, even in a “nice” way.
There is another interpretation of “I am an atheist when it comes to the view of the chosen few, who judge and condemn all who differ (sic) them.†That interpretation is that Mclaren (even though he doesn’t realize it) was simply talking about himself and those who believe like him. Thus in writing this song he compared himself and those who believe like him, or perhaps even defend him, to jihadists, etc. If you are actually defending Mclaren you should be upset by such a comparison.
August 7th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Amy,
Sounds like you’re engaging in a postmodern exegetic there. Anything else you’d like to read into McLaren’s statement? Maybe that he likes to eat babies and kick puppies?
August 7th, 2007 at 10:02 am
It’s funny how the watch doggies love to use hyperbole but deliberately choose to misinterpret it when used by someone they has deicded is not a True Christian.
August 7th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Tim,
I believe that your view that Mclaren was specifically referring to people who follow “the kind of God that condemns people to hell for not using organs in worship, and who expects his followers to act like complete jerks at all times” is a possibility on one level.
That’s because it’s easy to make a caricature of people who disagree over such doctrinal issues as the nature of scripture, the nature of obedience, creation, and so forth than it is to actually try to show biblical support for an unbiblical position.
I would like some proof that there are more than a handful of people who actually fully condemn people to hell for not using organs in worship. . I have heard statements like “If you use an organ or other musical instrument in worship you’re going to hell.” I have never actually read or heard, “You MUST use an organ, or go to hell.” Yes, there are many people who make an issue over music styles, associations. But there concerns are usually much broader than that.
I don’t know anyone who acts like a complete jerk at all times. I assume you must know many to have made such a statement. What kind of friends do you have? Or are you basing your assessment totally on an “internet impression” of some people? But you don’t even go to their church, how can you possibly know that they are complete jerks at all times?
August 7th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Amy,
I don’t quite understand your last point.
Really, when I read the lyric, I think of it as a swipe against Christians who consider themselves the Elect and are content to let everyone else go to Hell. They seem to be the ones who are the quickest to condemn those who have differenct views on secondary issues as apostate.
August 7th, 2007 at 10:10 am
Rick,
Brian’s stance on homosexuality is that it is a sin… what most miss is that he stated that we need to take a look at the whole of human sexuality, such as fornication, adultery, abortion, divorce… as well as homosexuality and not be so focused on one particular sin.
It is that we are isolating and alienating the gay community more than they have themselves. We need to let them know God loves them and wants to change them to be more fully human… to be the image of Christ.
The reason Brian, (rather off the cuff without realizing the hubbub he would cause) stated a moratorium was that we can refocus on the big picture and see a better way to reach the lost for Jesus… what happened was a bunch of people purposely of mistakenly mistook what he actually stated and began shouting that Brian was saying to be gay is ok… which if anyone can produce a quote from him stating that I would like to see. I am positive is just does not exist except in the minds of those who dislike him. (If I have a bunch of money laying around I would lay down a challenge, but I think that those who accuse Brian of this might consider double checking before they stand red faced in front of Jesus trying to explain why they bore false witness against Brian.)
Be Blessed,
iggy
August 7th, 2007 at 10:12 am
If by “internet impression” you mean “every way they publicly present themselves”, then yes.
August 7th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Amy,
I have met a handful of people who I am pretty sure are complete jerks at all times. They were jerks everytime I saw them, and around everyone else who knew them. It seems that if people don’t want others to think they’re jerks, they should quit acting like them.
August 7th, 2007 at 11:06 am
I think Amy’s trying to make a parallel between her making statements about people’s books without actually reading them and you/us believing that some people are jerks.
August 7th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Despite all this hoo-hah I think it’s funny that “skybala” is still the backdoor way for a Christian to use those naughty scatalogical images.
Good to see some things don’t change even after being off the grid for my new daughter’s birth…=)
Blessings to all…really.
August 7th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Tim - of course I believe and have been outspoken about the viscous and ungracious tone of Ken, Ingrid, and the like. I meant that MacLaren is a bad example and seems to be volitionally enigmatic. That only brings confusion.
August 7th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Tim said, “Anything else you’d like to read into McLaren’s statement? Maybe that he likes to eat babies and kick puppies?”
Tim, I said, “could be interpreted” and gave a list of some possibilities. Possibilities built on what Mclaren believes.
You previously gave your opinion of what the verse from his song meant. You said, “Now, how would you interpret that view? Perhaps that McLaren doesn’t believe in the kind of God that the watch doggies claim is out there? The kind of God that condemns people to hell for not using organs in worship, and who expects his followers to act like complete jerks at all times? Would that seem reasonable? I think so.”
You also said, “What McLaren was communicating was pretty clear, and yet Ingrid still couldn’t understand it. ”
You gave an opinion. You apparently think very highly of your opinion. You responded to my possible interpretations with “Anything else you’d like to read into McLaren’s statement? Maybe that he likes to eat babies and kick puppies?”
Why is your opinion of so much more value than mine? Why don’t you treat my opinion with a little bit of respect?
Why can’t you address the issues brought up, not the annoying fact that I have a different opinion than yours?
By the way I’ll be waiting for an answer about the organ. Some examples, please. Lots, since according to you Mclaren thought the people who believe that if you don’t have organ in the church you’re going to hell were numerous enough to deserve their own verse in his song. Right up there with the jihadists.
Please also explain who the “watchdoggies” are who were also honored in that verse, according to you.
“The point is that all the watch doggies come from the same point of view. They have lock stop doctrinal views, the culture they live in are exactly the same, and the way they communicate is exactly the same. And all of them completely and totally lack the ability to understand anyone who is not like them. ”
Who are these numerous watchdoggies that are all exactly the same . . . who were honored by Mclaren?
August 7th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Mostly because of your last paragraph. When your explanation for what a communicator intended to communicate involves saying “maybe he doesn’t even realize what he said” you’ve veered into nutball territory. Especially when its the least charitable explanation put forward.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Tim,
Ah yes, charitable explanations . . . such as “complete jerks” . . .
The point of my last “interpretation” is that the way people describe others can be the way they are themselves. Criticisms of others for being judgemental and condemning of those different than them can come from those who are judgemental and condemning. Just because a person or group throws around the words “loving,” “tolerant,” “grace,” doesn’t mean they are loving, tolerant, or gracious or unlike their perception of the very people they despise.
But I think you knew what I was saying.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Amy,
Calling them complete jerks is the most charitable description of the watch doggies I can come up with and still maintain my honesty.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Tim,
By the way, did you change the article a little bit from the original?
August 8th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Iggy’s quotes:
“Brian’s stance on homosexuality is that it is a sin…”
“what happened was a bunch of people purposely of mistakenly mistook what he actually stated and began shouting that Brian was saying to be gay is ok”
What do you think Brian is saying here, both in actions (the first reference) and in words (the second reference)
http://www.sherwoodopendoor.org/specialmessages.html
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vquwIObeOaA
“what most miss is that he stated that we need to take a look at the whole of human sexuality, such as fornication, adultery, abortion, divorce…”
While he’s “taking a look” is he affirming those who are commiting fornication, in the midst of adultery, getting abortions, divorcing? Does he make it a point to go preach at churches where the pastor and his wife are living in an openly adulterous relationship? Where the college pastor is openly fornicating with the girls in the college group?
August 8th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Amy,
The only changes made was the update. I did not change what was originally posted in the update. I do occasionally make grammatical/spelling changes to things I post. I don’t think I did that with this one, and when I do make those changes I don’t change anything of substance. Its usually additions or subtractions of prepositions, and spelling errors.
August 8th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
“Calling them complete jerks is the most charitable description of the watch doggies I can come up with and still maintain my honesty.”
Rick said the following under “Dan responds to Critics:”
“Ken doesn’t just disagree, he verbally assaults with words of scorn and pride.”
When I read that, I thought of you.
I also thought of your non-answers and evading the issues, which is a frequent accusation pointed at Ken.
How are you different? Or do you not consider those kinds of things problems?
August 8th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Amy,
As to what makes me different, I have never deliberately lied or slandered anyone, I have never question anyone’s salvation over issues not directly addressed in scripture, I have never deliberately distorted someone’s position. It is these qualities, along with the reality that the watch doggies deliberately try to give offense in virtually every public proclamation they make that leads me to characterize them as jerks.
I’ve never been evasive or given non-answers. Now, I’m sure you’ll respond that I have, but then again you’re the same person that in three different threads was responded to directly again and again and insisted on re-asking the same questions over and over again.
Speaking of which, I directly asked you why you responded so strongly about my statement about internet filters which was very mild by watch doggy standards, while you’ve never been the least bit critical of the watch doggies and you never responded. Given how much value you place on directly answering, I’m sure that was just an oversight and there will be a direct answer forthcoming.
August 8th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Regarding your last paragraph, this was what you said to me previously:
“If you’re not enough of an adult to access the internet without a filter, or the ability to bypass that filter, or at least change the settings, then perhaps you shouldn’t be trying to have conversations about adult subjects. ”
My “vehement” response was:
“Wow, Tim, that comment speaks volumes.
(an explanation why solving the IPCOP filter problem was not simple) . . . That’s more of an answer than I really even want to give to an extremely ungracious question.
Since when is maturity discerned by whether or not one uses an internet filter? FYI I have kids; but even if we didn’t I would probably still want some kind of block on - I can’t imagine why anyone would want to negatively judge us for that. ”
That was my “vehement” response. You responded:
“Also consider your vehement reaction to what I wrote and also consider it is quite mild in comparison to what is regularly written on sol/c?n/am/etc. Why don’t you have that same reaction towards them as you have towads me?”
I have already answered this kind of question numerous times. Must I repeat myself so those who have already accused me of doing so can have more evidence?
I guess so. Here is my answer:
We are not to judge ourselves by what others do, including the “watchdoggies.”
How do you know what my reaction to the “watchdoggies” is? How do you know what criticisms I have already written, both posted and unposted, but very likely certainly read by those who I have addressed them to.
I WILL NOT toss a breadcrumb of criticism towards watchdoggies out periodically so that I can appease you or anyone else. If I believe that I need to criticize them, I will do it, privately or publically as I feel God is leading me.
Regarding your first paragraphs: Lying and slandering includes making all-encompassing statements that are false, and wrongly judging motives. It doesn’t have to be deliberate to be lying or slandering.
Your second paragraph “I’ve never been evasive or given non-answers.” If you can say that after this thread . . .
Add this to my unanswered questions: Why are you defending Mclaren? What of Mclaren’s beliefs do you agree with?
August 8th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Amy,
I suspect very strongly that you’re not being completely honest in who you choose to criticize and why. I suspect the reason is that you agree and sympathize with the watch doggies. So you’re as obtuse as possible with anyone who criticizes them, and as harsh as possible with them. In fact, you’ve never agreed with anyone who criticizes the watch doggies here, and you’ve never advertised a writing space of your own. Perhaps if the way in which you dealt with everyone involved here were even handed you’d have a bit more legitimacy.
Add this to my list of comprehensive answers: go check out my website, I’ve criticized many emergents, including McLaren. In fact, this webspace is the only space I’ve defended them, and that’s only because of how unreasoning, unmerciful, and frankly, downright idiotic the posts made by watchdoggies are.
August 8th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
“In fact, you’ve never agreed with anyone who criticizes the watch doggies here”
Another all-inclusive statement that is simply false. Try looking under the discussion of the evangelist at the Pulau festival for starters.
“Perhaps if the way in which you dealt with everyone involved here were even handed you’d have a bit more legitimacy.”
I write about issues that I consider are the most important, as I have time. Sorry that I don’t toss out enough crumbs to appease you.
Another issue is that even though there are criticisms towards watchdoggies that I might agree with on the surface, there is an undercurrent of enmity and hate directed towards them that I choose to stay away from.
Speaking of even-handedness, should those who toss out negative comments on SLICE be forced to write an equal number of comments under things they agree with?
Why the need to control?
August 8th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Amy,
And here we go again. The questions that make assumptions. Is your next question to me going to be “when did you stop beating your wife”?
I never said anyone should be forced to do anything. My point is not in what you or they should be forced to do, but in how you are perceived because of the way you go about things. If you want to be perceived as agreeing with people who lie and slander and are quite nasty every time they write anything publicly, that’s yours and their business. Just don’t be surprised and (as you have been) defensive when its pointed out. Instead just proclaim loudly for the internet to see “I love nasty slanderers!”
August 10th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
“Is your next question to me going to be “when did you stop beating your wifeâ€?”
I believe Chris already used that one in slightly different form when I asked Nathan an apparently offensive question about scripture and the gospel in Soul Cravings.
You’ve used another phrase of his (I think his) as well:”diarrhea of the mouth.” You guys must be friends.
“My point is not in what you or they should be forced to do, but in how you are perceived because of the way you go about things.”
It’s not really”the way I go about things” that is the main issue. It’s what I believe that offends you.
August 10th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Amy,
The problem with what you believe is that you have no basis for it. You believe terrible things about people who you should consider your brothers and sisters and dealing with them as charitably as you do your blood relatives.
August 10th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Tim and Amy,
What you guys have is “a failure to communicate”.
There it had to be said… LOL!
Blessings,
iggy