CRN.Info and Analysis

I am not too sure how many times Ken Silva is going to write an article based on this relevant magazine interview with Erwin McManus. I am getting tired of writing rebuttals that easily dismiss Silva’s articles as academically and theologically irresponsible. Here are a few notes on the latest [miss]ive.

Erwin McManus, an influential voice within the neo-liberal cult of the Emergent Church as well as lead vocalist pastor, cultural architect and distinguished futurist of Mosaic

Are the petty jabs really that pastoral or necessary here? Again, they are not only juvenile, but inappropriate for a pastor or spiritual leader.

For a more in-depth look at this issue I refer the interested reader to Rob Bell and Karl Barth. But for our purposes here Dr. Francis Schaeffer gives us a concise understanding of the neo-orthodox approach to the Bible when he points out that Barth

This is the basic logic here

• Ken say Bell agrees with Karl Barth
• Francis Schaeffer says Karl Barth is a heretic
• Therefore Bell is a heretic
• Because Ken says Bell and McManus are the same, McManus is a heretic

Ken continues

The reason why you will see so many leaders within the emerging church so unwilling to commit to the inerrancy of Scripture is their own adherence to Barth’s essentially higher critical i.e. near liberal approach to Holy Scripture. And for those who have not been taken in with McManus’ more mystic bent it then becomes clear that McManus interprets the Bible according to his own feelings about what he thinks God is saying

Unfortunately, McManus was not asked about the inerrancy of scripture. He was asked “How do we begin to move toward living a life that reflects God’s character? What are some practical ways?” Had he been asked about the inerrancy of scripture, he would have addressed the issue. That’s like criticizing someone for not saying the sky is blue when they were asked what the grass feels like between your toes. It is simply bad logic and research methods.

But, since Silva is so anxious to know McManus’ view of the scriptures, he only needs to look as Mosaic’s first core conviction: “The Bible is God’s infallible, authoritative word to us.” Now, the dictionary defines “infallible” as incapable of failure or error. So, sounds like McManus has clearly stated that the scriptures are not only the authoritative word of God, but they are incapable of error. That sounds a lot like inerrancy to me.

Ken continues to scrape at any hope of pinning his self-defined advisory by trying to prove McManus and John Shelby Spong hold to the same theological views on scripture. You can read for yourself, but they are unmerited, and unsupported at best. Ken does not address McManus’ statements

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… The Scriptures are to me the instrument that God has placed in history for me to learn the voice of God. (emphasis mine)

He did address McManus’ statement “I treasure the Scriptures.” However, he calls the statement “patronizing”. I suppose David was patronizing when he wrote, “Your word I have treasured in my heart,That I may not sin against You.” You can be the judge of the rest. I find it interesting that Silva writes yet another [miss]ive on this interview with McManus after being proven inaccurate here.

Snippets of Spurgeon’s sermons have been used lately to promote that fact that he was stern with deceivers and had no patience with false teachers. Surely there were times that he was so, but which false teachers did he deal with? Was it just the compromisers that some mold into their convenient packages, or were there others to which Spurgeon took out his verbal whip? So with that in mind, let us read some more of Spurgeon, some parts that some people do not want you to read. This is what Spurgeon had to say about men who teach that baptism saves, and notice how he connects those who teach infant baptism with holding hands with the Roman Catholic Church. You want Spurgeon, you got him!

Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Matthew 20:25-28

From here:

Men like Spurgeon didn’t come out and mingle with the congregation to show how real they were while they preached. They stood in a position of authority by virtue of his God-given office as under-shepherd.

Its a real shame that Jesus couldn’t have lived up to Ingrid’s standards. Why its amazing anyone paid any attention to him at all what with not having a pulpit at all, and going out and mingling with the crowds.

At some point we need to realize that the scripture’s admonitions to servanthood, and humility is at odds with the way western Christianity has viewed ministry. I wonder if Jesus, Paul, Peter, James etc. would even recognize a preacher dressed in a suit and tie, preaching down to a congregation from a pulpit as Christianity. Humility, servanthood, and our culture’s trappings of power don’t go together.

The use of metaphors and hyperbole are edifying when applied in a devotional setting, their application in that context is usually without controversy and enjoyed by all. But when you are confronting a person and his teachings a much more measured approach must be implimented or you allow your words and by connection you yourself to become part of the presentation.

When you are using the Word to edify you can cull out a verse and build upon it without breaking new doctrinal ground, but when quoting someone we must be very careful in isolating a quote as a proof text. It can lend itself easily to misrepresentation. That is why we must do dispassionate and careful studies about anyone with whom we disagree and present fairly what he is saying/teaching because we as believers should be clear and fair as well as strong. People like Ken are strong, invective, and with the hyperbole and conclusion laden posts that are mostly without organized evidence they have made themselves the issue and failed miserably in projecting what they claim is their ministry, exposing error.

Wrapped in the cloak of Reformation language they have rebuffed many serious students of the Word, even among those who would agree, because of their caustic and self righteous tone. When the issues are of such supreme importance should we not endeavor to remove our own emotions and manipulative wording so as to provide the most accurate representation of the truth about people’s positions? Yes, we should, but it is very difficult because we as believers are so given to the world’s way of “talk show” discourse.

We can do better.