keep diggin’
I think many of us easily have questions with McLaren’s theology. However, this statement from Ken Silva at C?N, entitled Brian McLaren of the Emerging Church is an Apostate and a Liar, is alarming. When McLaren was asked what he did when he had a crisis of faith in systematic theology, he responded with
It sounds trite, but I kept praying. I stayed close to God. I didn’t let my doubts about ideas pertaining to God drive me away from the God who was always far above and beyond my best ideas of God, not to mention my worst ones.
Ken’s immediate response was
Well Brian, I have a couple of questions for you: I have also “kept praying,” and I have “stayed close to God”; and the one true and living God of the Bible, “Who was always far above” has led me to believe that you are an apostate and a liar. So where do we go now Brian? Which of our existential and subjective experience is actually from God? How would we know?
I think that once again speaks for itself
August 9th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
What’s alarming is Ken Silva asks the question and then answers himself with a verse that is taken out of context, and when read with the other, surrounding verses, exposes the hypocrisy of Apprising’s “ministry.”
Live in peace with each other…
be patient with everyone….
but always try to be kind to each other and to everyone else.
1 Thes. 5:12-15
August 9th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
After reading that entire interview I’m more comfortable than I’ve ever been about defending McLaren. Sure there’s still things he says/does that makes me less than party-throwing happy, but as I’ve said before, if I have to choose between the rhetorical thugs of the watch dawggies and the dirty dirty hippies of the emergent/emerging churches give me the dirty dirty hippies.
On a totally unrelated note:
Q. Where do you hide your money from a hippy?
A. Under the soap.
August 9th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Didn’t you know? McClaren is a liar because he says he prays.
Ken Silva should really be embarrassed for his slanderous commentaries.
And how does lying about a person (ironically by calling that person a liar) align with Ken’s literal interpretation of scripture?
August 9th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
It is interesting that all these “emerging” leaders are over clarifying their doctrine. It turns out that they aren’t as crazy as the watchdoggies say. I hope the pack can recognize that, and not just attack for the sake of attacking. But it seems like CHANGE is not their strong point.
August 9th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
And where is Jesus in all this? Full of grace and truth, where is that? Forbearance and mercy, forgiveness and love - where are they. Christianity has been reduced in some circles to a constant arguement with name calling as a garnish.
If we only realized Who Jesus is and who we were before He found us by His grace. It is a sign of immiturity and insecurity not to be able to discuss, even strongly, with brothers with whom you disagree. And in two and one half years I’ve not seen one invitation by anyone to get together and pray.
Sometimes it’s all nuts and bolts and never any meaningful bouquets.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Ken Silva ROCKS!
August 9th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Ken asks, “Which of our existential and subjective experience is actually from God? How would we know?”
Seems pretty obvious to me–the one who lives out a Christ-like life. I don’t know Ken, but his words consistently go directly against what I believe the Bible says about how we are to treat others. He obviously spends hours each day judging and condemning and lying about other Christians.
I know Brian, and have watched him live a life than honors and reflects Jesus in both his words and actions. He treats even those who slander him with grace.
Ken, this one’s a no brainer. And we’re still waiting for you to answer Dan Kimball’s question.
August 9th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Dave,
Ken is a liar (Romans 3:4) because he states he believes in Grace… yet he displays it in no way. Oh, and Ken’s interpretation of scripture is whatever Ken wants to do and justify at the moment.
Blessings,
iggy
August 9th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Toddfc,
As I read your post I thought, it is ok to judge and condemn things that are against Christ. But Ken has made a full-time ministry of it. It is obvious that he spend copious amounts of time, combing the internet for anything to judge and condemn. I wonder what would happen if he put that energy into sharing Christ with the people of his community. I think he would find that he wouldn’t just have a home bible study to pastor any more.
August 9th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
This one’s for amy. You go girl!
“But Ken has made a full-time ministry of it.” Um, do you happen to know that for a fact? Have you any idea of the all the ministries the Lord has given me to oversee?
Or how about have you actually read eveything I have ever written? How about coming to my community and seeing what involvement I have with it, when did you do that? Have you ever been to my church? Do you know what I teach there?
And what is to be said of those who “spend copious amounts of time, combing the internet for” things I write? Ooh, your own medicine’s rather bitter when you have to swallow it, isn’t it?
August 9th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
1. I don’t know that for a fact. But the way you pump out missives, articles, blogs and comments on every critic’s site, one is left wondering how on earth you have time for anything else. I am lucky if I have time two get two in a day… you are lucky if you get seven or eight in, + a handful of rebuttals in other bloggers comment sections.
2. With all that time on the web, I wonder how much you actually do. Notice I purposefully did not say that you do nothing… I just wonder how much more effective you would be if you spent more time with the people God has placed around you. It seems like the most immediate ministry the Lord has given you to oversee would be right there in your neighborhood.
3. I don’t need to spend copious amounts of time combing the internet. I get my hate spew to write on from two websites… guess what they might be.
August 9th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Perhaps you should consider at least reading entire interviews and books before you break out something like this.
There’s a small part of me that thinks you’re just some prankster’s online persona.
August 9th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
“Or how about have you actually read eveything I have ever written? How about coming to my community and seeing what involvement I have with it, when did you do that? Have you ever been to my church? Do you know what I teach there?”
I wish you would take this same approach with Bell, McManus, Kimball, Warren, Hybles, etc….
It’s funny how you don’t have to visit their churches or read everything they have written to write international criticism. But the second someone does it to you, you freak.
August 9th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Listen, as an adult I see Ken as dismissive, adolescent, and just plain goofy.
As a following believer in the Lord Jesus, it is difficult to put into words. Like a scratched record he plays the same, tired, drive by attacks which lack the grace and respect that the New Testament teaches. The self enamored way in which he describes people with derisive names and scorn belies any spirit of love.
And phrases like “maybe next time” seem to indicate some kind of high school mindset, as if the things we discuss are some type of competition, and like someone holding their hands over their ears and saying “I can’t hear you!”. These are serious times for serious people, but what should separate us from other genres is love. Without love we are sounding brass and tinkling cymbal.
I wonder what Ken’s ministry would sound like if he used his research skills, complete with his seemingly enormous energy, and wrote accurately and definitively on Biblical subjects with clarity and urgency, but against a backdrop of love and respect. Maybe he would be more than just a ponderous caricature.
August 9th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Ken,
While you continue to play verbal badmitton (HT: RICK) with these other gentlemen your answer to Dan Kimball still goes unspoken.
August 9th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Joe - we all know by now that is a red herring. It will not happen. Every once in a while Ken will post a quote in response to a question, but they are very few. The “you guys are so blind” comments are usually the comment du jour.
August 10th, 2007 at 1:30 am
The problem is that Ken is starting from a position that he is right, that he understands the truth, and therefore Brian (or Rob, Erwin, Rick, Bill et) couldn’t win. Because he has already decided they are wrong, there will always be an answer to rebuke them. If Brian had said, “I just went back to the truths handed down and trusted them” he would have been accused of catholic heresy. If he had said “I went back to scripture” Ken would have said “He is blinded from seeing the truth because of his neo-liberal spectacles”.
In the end you can always find fault in what your ‘enemy’ says if you really want to.
August 10th, 2007 at 9:05 am
I haven’t read any of the discussion since I left a comment about Mclaren under “Let’s Start Here.” I have only read a few comments here. Maybe I’m taking a big risk by making a comment without reading up on the discussion.
But I’ll take the risk. The video from Willow Creek Arts Conference that I cited for Iggy under the previous discussion of Mclaren’s song, was something I hadn’t heard before. I may have seen the other reference to his speaking at the church but hadn’t really looked at it.
Those two things really bothered me, and were on my mind yesterday morning when I read all of I Peter. I hate talking about scripture as “some verses that really stuck out to me” when in reality the whole context, if I’m concentrating, is a constantly new exposition of the glory, power, and overwhelming love of Christ. Reading I Peter, I got a strong sense of the wonder of Jesus Christ. A Jesus who paid a higher price for our redemption than we can ever understand. A Jesus who gives very clear commands for the children he has redeemed.
I Peter 1:13-16 (v 14-16 “As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.”")
I Peter 1:17-21 (19 “(you were redeemed with) the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.”
I Peter 2:7 “Now to you who believe, this stone is precious . . . .”
I Peter 2:11 “Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul.”
I Peter 4:1-6 (Doing what pagans “choose to do” is something of the past. Now we are to live according to His will, through His Spirit.)
I Peter 4:8 “Love each other deeply . . . .”
Later in the afternoon, feeling troubled not just by Brian Mclaren but by the thought that it seemed that some people want to defend him, I turned (I believe through God’s leading) to Hebrews 10:10-39. I don’t pretend to know exactly how this scripture applies, but, certainly it should be taken seriously. Verse 26 says, “If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left.” It occurred to me that Mclaren’s welcoming and affirming stance towards the lesbian (who had tried everything, nothing worked, her partner wanted to come to church, they were welcomed) is a means of saying “it’s alright to “deliberately keep on sinning.” It’s a way of saying “there are some sins that can not be repented of, and Christ will just accept you if you continue in those sins. He understands. ”
His speaking at the church with the gay pastors says the same thing.
If he’s teaching this kind of things to people who claim to be Christians, it’s a way of “trampling the Son of God under foot, . . . (treating) as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctifies them.”
If he’s teaching non-believers that they can come to God without turning away from such sin, and continue happily in God’s grace while holding onto them, growing in grace, confident in their salvation . . . he has a thin bible.
He’s teaching that it’s okay for Christians to decide to continue in sin. This contradicts much of Scripture, including some verses in I John.
Looking at the scriptures I’ve cited, as well as ones I haven’t cited, on sexual immorality, plus ones that specifically address homosexuality, I’m left with these conclusion.
Brian Mclaren is teaching lies. “Gentle,” “loving” LIES. His lies do not show “deep love” for anyone but will do serious harm to the church, especially to anyone who is even momentarily tempted by a lustful feeling towards the opposite sex. To have even one such feeling, can, in today’s society, easily bring up the question in one’s mind, “Am I gay?” A Christian who has heard Mclaren speak as he did at the Willow Creek Conference can be led to think, “Well, if I am, it’s okay - God accepts me just like I am.” He will be more and more open to having lustful thoughts towards the opposite sex.
Mclaren’s teaching shows not just disrespect but scorn for the word of God.
The children he will mislead . . . ‘It is better that a millstone . . . .”
I’ll take a harsh truth over a gentle lie any day.
May God bring him to repentance. If it’s not too late.
August 10th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Amy,
The problem most people here have with what you (and most of the watch doggies) is that you make assumptions about what other people teach. You’ve done this to many posters here (including myself) and your entire comment here is based on doing this to McLaren. I mean, look at how you are “troubled” that someone would defend him on a particular point. And yet, in your entire comment is not a single quote from McLaren, or a link to an interview, or even a passage from one of his books. Instead you just start with the assumption that McLaren is icky and wrong and go from there. There’d be a bit more legitimacy to your posts if you didn’t start with the assumption that the e/e church is automatically evil.
August 10th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Amy, I don’t know you, but I assume that you sin. I also assume that there is a certain sin that you struggle with more frequently than other sins. I will continue assuming that you attend a church that welcomes you with open arms. I will assume that your church affirms you, builds you up and sharpens you.
We are all sinners. Some of us struggle with sins that are visibly destructive, others struggle with equally destructive, but less obvious sins. Homosexuality is a sin. It is not the only sin. And it is not a sin that can’t be covered by the grace of Jesus.
McLaren is responding to the past 100 years of hatred, judgment and condemnation of an entire, growing segment of our society that has become the posterchild for both conservative and liberal political interests.
Does McLaren go to far? I don’t think so, but I certainly understand why some would reason that way. But I know and believe that his spirit is one of reconciliation and redemption. His goal, his desire is to bring people into relationship with Jesus Christ and he has chosen to do that through love, kindness and respect.
Amy, you talk about McLaren doing “serious harm to the church.” I have to ask, in your estimation which is more harmful for the church: accepting people from all backgrounds and lifestyles OR excluding people based on “preexisting” lifestyle conditions?
August 10th, 2007 at 11:48 am
“It occurred to me that Mclaren’s welcoming and affirming stance towards the lesbian (who had tried everything, nothing worked, her partner wanted to come to church, they were welcomed) is a means of saying “it’s alright to “deliberately keep on sinning.—
Amy, I don’t know how loving someone = affirming their sin. In fact, Jesus loved people before he ever mentioned the gospel. Also, you have NO idea that conversations followed in that relationship with the lesbian. It really bothers me that somehow we can love sinners, as long as they are believers. It’s ok to say “Sister Sally is struggling with gluttony, so lets rally around her and love her”
same thing with the speaking… maybe Paul was a sinner for preaching in the middle of a courtyard filled with Greek Idols. I am sure he affirmed their sin by doing that. Maybe Paul should have not preached in Solomon’s Porch because it affirmed the Jewish faith. I tell you what… if I was invited to preach at a Buddhist temple, I would be there in a heartbeat!
People need to go out a befriend gays and atheists and try to lead them to Christ. I think it would rock their views of evangelism.
August 10th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
I’m not sure if befriending people solely in order to lead them to Christ is really love, but I think I get what you meant.
August 10th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
People need to go out a befriend gays … and try to lead them to Christ.
Gays need to be lead to Christ? Who knew?
I love how people can assume that someone doesn’t know Jesus.
August 10th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
People need to go out and befriend people without labeling them. That would rock people’s view of evangelism!
August 10th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
No, I meant what I said… I did not say that we should befriend gays and atheists with the sole purpose of converting them. This was also directed to the watch doggies, who run their mouth off about what people should or should not do with homosexuals, but have probably never even had a conversation with a gay person. I think they might change their views if they actually befriended a gay person and struggled with that it felt like to love them and want them to know Christ at the same time.
August 10th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Ah ok, I see what you mean Nathan.
BTW, I liked the comment about the Buddhist temple, remember how much crap Ravi dealt with when he spoke in Utah?
August 10th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
And yet, in your entire comment is not a single quote from McLaren, or a link to an interview, or even a passage from one of his books.”What do you think Brian is saying here, both in actions (the first reference) and in words (the second reference)
You’re right, Tim. I didn’t provide links as I was in a hurry. I said, “The video from Willow Creek Arts Conference that I cited for Iggy under the previous discussion of Mclaren’s song, was something I hadn’t heard before.” I imagine you probably already read that comment and knew what I was talking about.
The links I was referring to were http://www.sherwoodopendoor.org/specialmessages.html
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vquwIObeOaA
August 10th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Being a friend to any unsaved person should have a redemtive quality in it. Not just to count the scalps, but out of a profound love and concern.
August 10th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Amy,
Again, can you point to the exact quote where anyone of these people, Brian especially calls homosexuality “good” and “fine” and states emphatically that “this sin is acceptable”?
I hear only that the people are acceptable… but that the sin of homosexuality is a much larger issue….
Do you not agree that there is more of a “sexual” problems in our churches that homosexuality?
Do think divorce, fornication, incest, spousal abuse, clergy sexual abuse, pedophiles, and many other sexual issues are less of a sin?
It seems that no one hears what Brian is saying… that it is a larger issue than just “homosexuality”.
What I hear from people who have your view is that all those ‘’sins” as well as drugs, alcoholism, gluttony, gossip, bearing false witness against another, stealing, and on and on are more acceptable in our churches that “homosexuals”.
It sort of creeps me out that one sin is so ostricized and so many others are “accepted”.
Blessings,
iggy
August 10th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Amy,
So before I give a detailed explanation to all your scriptural references… which to me mostly are Jesus who was a Jew, teaching Jews was teaching the stringency of the Law and that they need to be more holy than the Pharisees… in other words Jesus was burying those that He taught… and that is why so often the disciples asked, “Who then can be saved?”
What I am stating is that you need to give me as many reasons as to why you accept all those sins and that why others like Ken and Ingrid accept all those sins as “OK” or “good” and even justify them… then I will give detailed and complete answers to all your scriptural references… which some seem out of context of sorts.
Be Blessed,
iggy
August 11th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Iggy,
You asked for a quote. Here’s Mclaren’s full answer to Dan’s principle of being welcoming but not affirming (transcribed as closely as I could):
“I think it’s possible (with question intonation) and think that it works for people who are already Christians and are gay, and they want to be honest about who they are. I don’t think that works for people who are in relationships because in a way a lot of them have been damaged so much that they don’t want to cause trouble but they also don’t want to get more damage so I think that’s why thank God we have different kinds of churches that can be more or less helpful to different people.â€
Whatever happened to the need for repentance, the recognition of God’s divine power that helps one lead a godly life (II Peter 1:3-4), calling sin sin. When did “honesty†replace repentance and obedience as a virtue? What happened to I Cor 5 and 6?
Mclaren mentioned different kinds of churches. We can see from where he has spoken that the “different kinds of churches†that he finds acceptable are welcoming and affirming, even affirming the leadership of gay pastors.
August 11th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Iggy,
You said, “So before I give a detailed explanation to all your scriptural references… which to me mostly are Jesus who was a Jew, teaching Jews was teaching the stringency of the Law and that they need to be more holy than the Pharisees… in other words Jesus was burying those that He taught… and that is why so often the disciples asked, “Who then can be saved?â€
I don’t know what you’re talking about. The references are mostly in I Peter and Hebrews. Even if they were in the gospels, I still wouldn’t know what you were talking about.
“give me as many reasons as to why you accept all those sins and that why others like Ken and Ingrid accept all those sins as “OK†or “good†and even justify them…” What you’re saying is that I need to go verbally beat up Ken and Ingrid before I have any right to talk about this issue. Wrong. But if you need an excuse to not look at scripture, this will no doubt work for you.
II Peter 1:3-4 sums up the fact that Jesus gives us “everything we need for life and godliness . . . so that we may “escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.”
God, through His Word NEVER encourages people to accept that there is a sin that is okay to keep commiting, or to accept the idea that there is some sin that can’t be overcome. And never does he speak fondly of Christian leaders who are teaching such things.