Is it just me, or is CRN getting more and more ridiculous with the claims they are making against so-called emergent leaders? Ken Silva criticizes McManus for this quote in relevant magazine

Well, I build my life not on the Word of God, but the voice of God. The Scriptures are to me the instrument that God has placed in history for me to learn the voice of God. I treasure the Scriptures. (emphasis mine)

I am trying to see how this statement would warrant a title like “Erwin McManus: Building His Life Not on the Word of God but on Subjective Experience.” However, as usual, the Christian [bad]Research Network failed to add this quote given right before this one in the article

Knowing God, knowing His heart, knowing His character is really about falling passionately in love with God and experiencing His love. Of course, there are dynamics to that: the Scriptures are essential. God speaks through the cosmos, God speaks through creation, God speaks through human experience and conscience, God speaks through everything, yes—but I do see the Scriptures as the primary access, a portal into God’s presence. I began to have a clear sense of God’s voice in my life through reading the Scriptures and hearing God’s voice through the Scriptures. (emphasis mine)

Ken closes the article with a few juvenile and ridiculous jabs at Erwin. First Ken says that Mcmanus is a “darling” of his very own denomination (the Slowly Becomnng Catholic, as Silva says… original spelling from his site). Let me be clear on this. Ken attempts to discredit McManus, accuses him of being a loved person within Silva’s own denomination, and finally attempts to discredit his own denomination with petty and unmerited name calling. As stated here before, if the SBC was becoming catholic, then Ken is in sin by his own standards.

Silva then describes McManus as a “distinguished furturist, lead guitarist pastor and cultural architect”. While I have yet to figure out what a furturist is, I have also yet to find where McManus (or anyone else for that manner) describes himself as a guitarist. Silva must have stuck that out because re realized it wouldn’t be proper to publish information without proper research. That’s it. And, since Silva recommended some reading for McManus, I would suggest this for him.

John 10:14-16 & 27
I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.

for the record, 100% of the information/research links were to Silva’s own website. I am going to try that in my next seminary paper due. I think I’ll start it out with “According to me…”

There have been some questions as to how the ECM would respond to criticism of three figures who are either in the ECM or are, at least, associated by others as being part of it.  One such response, by an ECM church pastor, Bob Hyatt, takes a similar approach to what several writers here at CRN.info have taken, as well.

From his blog:

The Driscoll podcast calling out everyone to the left is up.  Here’s the message- listen to it. (and skip the first few minutes… You’ve heard it. At some point Mark needs to start beginning messages with “I know you’ve all heard the story of my rough and tumble youth, and if you haven’t, just pick a random podcast from iTunes- I’m pretty sure it will be in there.”)
 

To sum up-
He uses the word “heresy” in and around the discussion, and while he doesn’t apply it directly to the forehead of either Brian, Doug or Rob, he doesn’t leave a whole lot of doubt as to what category he places these guys in mentally…

So- for the record…

I agree with Mark- Brian McLaren seems to endorse just about whatever book comes across his desk and some of them are truly disturbing. I don’t so much have a problem with what Brian himself says- but he seems to endorse and approve of some books with some horrific ideas. This concern has been growing in me for awhile.   

I agree with Mark- If Doug truly did tell him publicly that homosexual practice (as opposed to orientation) is consistent with following Jesus, he’s wrong. (I feel I should modify that statement somehow, but I won’t. That’s what the comments are for…)
I don’t, however, think this makes him a heretic.

I somewhat agree with Mark-
About Rob Bell…
a. Rabbinical authority.  Mark dings Rob for  saying that if you want to understand Scripture, you have to understand the Rabbis. Has Rob ever actually said this? Yeah- he’s got his style in this regard, but I don’t think (as far as I know) that he raises this to the level Mark is saying he does.

b. Mark disagrees with Rob’s “trajectory hermeneutic.” I agree with it. Webb’s book Slaves, Women and Homosexuals is one everyone should read and understand. It fits well with a Jesus-centered, Gospel-focused understanding of the Scriptures. Mark dings Rob for having women elders and in so doing reduces the whole argument to something of an oversimplification and caricature.

He also conflates homosexuality into the argument, missing or ignoring the point that Webb specifically denies that there is a redemptive movement or arc in Scripture regarding that issue. I personally have heard Bell make the same exact point. I think the “guilt by association” argument sticks somewhat in McLaren’s case as eventually he’s going to have to answer for that of which he approves, but I find the “slippery slope” tack here frustrating.

c. I agree with Mark- Rob Bell overplayed the spring metaphor in Velvet Elvis. I know (and affirm) what he was trying to say, but he picked the wrong example to demonstrate it. I’m glad Rob himself affirms the Virgin Birth, but by saying it’s not necessary, he potentially gives away the farm. He’s not a heretic as far as I can tell, but he probably does need to hear what Mark says on this.

Overall, though the case against Bell is a bit stretched, Mark is on target, particularly at the end as regards the ineffectiveness of some in the emerging church to do anything other than attract the disgruntled children of evangelicalism- I think you all should listen to it.

As an aside- there’s a lot of talk about whether Mark “should” have taken a Matthew 18 approach with these guys…

And my take is this- Whether or not he “should” have… he could have. This is a guy who could get a face-to-face with any of these 3 big names he’s calling out.

I know, I know, I KNOW how busy he is (that’s one of my main complaints about the mega-church pastoral lifestyle), but what I’d like to see is less of the big guns in this whole thing (and let’s face it- calling someone out for heresy is like the a-bomb… there’s really isn’t any way to escalate after that) and more pleading with people he calls friends and brothers to come around (he admits that there’s distance, he hasn’t talked to Brian or Bell and has had only 1 or 2 conversations with Doug and not of the kind I’m talking about). I’m not saying Mark’s completely off-base here, but if I have a chance to rally and supply my troops or sit down one-on-one with the general of the opposing “team” (as Mark likes to call it) I think I might try the second  for awhile and save the first for a possibly necessary last resort.

is one everyone should read and understand. It fits well with a Jesus-centered, Gospel-focused understanding of the Scriptures. Mark dings Rob for having women elders and in so doing reduces the whole argument to something of an oversimplification and caricature.

Thanks, Bob…