CRN.Info and Analysis

what happens when your poster boys for truth, doctrine and all that is good in the world begin to live a purpose driven life? Well, you have “no choice but to issue this warning to the body of Christ” [link added] Looks like Greg Laurie is joining forces with Rick Warren, and the ODMs are not too happy. This is one crazy case of guilt by association.

story submitted on our submissions page by Richard Abanes

I guess it’s time for the weekly question about Mark Driscoll: Do the ODM’s love him or hate him this week?

[spins the wheel]

Love Mark - Hate Mark - Like Mark - Hate Mark - Like Mark …

…

-Hate Mark-

Oops! Guess it’s his time to toss Mark in the barrel. Why, you might ask? Let’s start with the video below, part of the promotion for a one-night appearance in Sydney, Australia called Burn Your Plastic Jesus. subtitled “Mark Driscoll takes a blow-torch to the 21st century Jesus, and rediscovers the Jesus of the New Testament”.

Probably the quote that tipped it over the edge was the one the held a mirror to a particular type of Christian, of which discernments are a key subset -

Ask the average person, walking down the street, what they think of Jesus, and they will immediately identify him with someone who is religious, loves rules, is unpleasant, unkind, unhelpful. Someone they do not want to be with. Someone they do not want to be like.

Does that sound like the most accurate understanding of Jesus? In no way.

When Jesus was on the earth, he called sinners to repent of sin, go find your pants, stop drinking, get a job, move out of your parents’ house, grow up… He said those sorts of things and people loved him for it.

Religious people hated him the most. He told them to repent of their religion. Stop being so prideful. Stop being so self-righteous, so judgmental, so holier-than-thou. The result is that they despised, opposed and ultimately murdered him.

This may shock you - Jesus is as opposed to ‘religion’ as he is to sin…

Ah - no need to wonder anymore why the teeth were set to ‘gnash’ in ‘discernment-ville’ today.

Apparently, Mark’s public message in Australia, which partly concludes (if the advertisement is correct) that Jesus wants to save Christians in addition to the lost, isn’t going to cut the mustard because he is disrespectful of the plastic, pop-culture “Jesus”, represented by the kitschy bobble-head represented on the page. Or possibly that he describes religious folk as being just as bad as sinners. The mysterious “editor” doesn’t let us know.

And so whose spiritual advice does the anonymous discerner give regarding Driscoll ? Jesus? James? Peter? John? Paul? Nope - a few steps above those (though still below Spurgeon) - Christian mystic A. W. Tozer:

Some preachers have such a phobia for repetition and such an unnatural fear of the familiar that they are forever straining after the odd and the startling… We dare not impugn the honesty or the sincerity of the men who thus flap their short wings so rapidly in an effort to take off into the wild blue yonder, but we do deplore their attitudes.

Ah, poor Mark. He didn’t get the ODM playbook on the only proper ways to preach. I just wish these guys would make up their minds about Driscoll - is he OK or not? Will they not discern for the masses?

Or - have the sheep already heard the echo of the master’s voice in his under-shepherd from Seattle and recognized the baying of the wolves for what it is?

Tony Jones posted the latest installment of his “On the Road with Trucker Frank” series today, webisode 5. In this clip Jones talks with two Evangelical pastors about their opinions on church planting, what people want in a church, and going to bars.

The second pastor in the clip may be familiar to you, as he is none other than Pastorboy, a semi-regular commenter here at CRN.info. As is quite evident, he and Tony Jones don’t quite see eye to eye, especially on what God can and cannot do. Also, Emergent’s lack of statement of faith is a matter of contention. Perhaps one commenter on Jone’s blog sums up the difference in worldviews with this comment:

“Jesus is who the Bible says He is.”- you

“Well lets nail that down…”- other guy

There’s an interesting sentence.

I think there has been enough “nailing down” of Jesus already.

UPDATE: Here is a link to the entire, unedited interview.

**Disclaimer:  I am doing an admittedly dangerous and possibly frustrating thing here.  I am defending Brian McLaren.  This should not be taken as blanket endorsement of McLaren’s thoughts.  I will admit, I like a lot of what he says, but there is some that I disagree with.

Well, it seems that Mr. Silva has gotten tired of talking about Rob Bell for a while, and has now set his sights on Brian McLaren.  This is not surprising since McLaren has become a de facto spokesman of sorts for the Emergent movement, but what it surprising, is how so easily facts get twisted in these attacks.

In this piece, we are told that Brian McLaren is “Speaking for Satan” - a pretty serious charge.  Ken gives this quote from D.A. Carson’s book, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, which says:

substitutionary atonement doesn’t address the question of why, if God wants to forgive us, he doesn’t just do it. How can punishing an innocent person make things better? “That just sounds like one more injustice in the cosmic equation. It sounds like divine child abuse. You know?”

Now it would be one thing if this quote were an accurate representation of McLaren’s work.  What Silva is doing is actually quoting someone who is pulling one line from McLaren’s book, The Story We Find Ourselves In.  For those that aren’t familiar with this book, it is the second in his New Kind of Christian trilogy.

These books are essentially semi-autobiographical novels.  They tell the story of middle-aged pastor, named Dan Poole, who has a crisis of faith, and ends up having a bunch of conversations about faith with Neo, a biology teacher who turns out to be somewhat of a mentor to Dan.  The passage that this quote is ripped out of is from the chapter entitled “More Than Even All the Windows Can Show”.  In this chapter Dan, Neo, Carol (Dan’s wife), and Kerry (Neo’s friend) are having a convseration about why Jesus had to die.  Below is an excerpt:

Carol was quiet for a minute, very thoughtful, first looking down at her feet, then over at the mountains that surrounded us, and then back to Kerry in front of her.  “Well, I believe that God sent Jesus into the world to absorb all the punishment for our sins.  That’s what the cross was all about.  It was Jesus absorbing the punishment that all of us deserve.  He became the substitute for all of us.  As he suffered and died, all our wrongs were paid for, so all of us can be forgiven.  OK?”

Kerry smiled. “I know that is supposed to mean something to me, and I suppose I can see it, but it raises so many questions.”

“Go ahead,” Carol said. “What questions?”

“For starters, if God wants to forgive us, why doesn’t he just do it?  How does punishing an innocent person make things better?  That just sounds like one more injustice in the cosmic equation.  It sounds like divine child abuse.  You know?”

Carol looked for help. ”I don’t think I’m doing very well.  Dan? Neo?”

I spoke up. “Kerry, what Carol just tried to explain is what theologians call a theory of atonement.  It’s a possible explanation for how Jesus’ life and death play a role in the salvation of the human race.”

Kerry responded, “Yes.  I can see that you would need such a theory.  It’s just that it…well, Christian dogma and doctrine don’t make complete sense to me.  No offense, but I grew up with this stuff, and it just stopped working for me as I grew older.”

“I understand,” I said. “Really, what Carol explained is just one of six theories.  It’s called the ’substitutionary atonement’ theory.  To me, it’s like…” - I gestured up toward the sky - it’s like trying to see the whole beautiful, majestic sky from one of your hospital windows.”

The chapter goes on to talk about the different theories of atonement, and it doesn’t deny any of them.  It just says that none of them capture the full meaning of the cross.  There will always be part of the beauty that is mysterious.  Brian McLaren never denies substitutionary atonement as a valid explanation in this book or in any of his other books.  If anything, he like other theologians, realize that it has the potential to be misunderstood.  This is a far cry from a denial.

So once again, it goes to show that if you do a little research, like actually reading the book for yourself, you can avoid making a fool out of yourself.

Several weeks ago, Shane Hipps spoke at Mars Hill Bible Church on the Spirituality of the Cellphone (link good for about 7 more weeks) a look at how human culture is, and has been, shaped by its media and the underlying technology for thousands of years. His message was so compelling, dovetailing with a professional project I’m working on, that I ordered his new book which greatly expands on the subject: The Hidden Power of Electronic Culture.

As a one-time ad-man for Porche, who left the world of marketing to become a pastor, Hipps does a remarkable job at examining how the media we use and choose, in and of itself, conveys certain messages, things what we need to be cognizant of as Christians in our culture. I cannot recommend this book enough, especially if you are interested in how to communicate Christ in an increasingly postmodern society. Continue Reading »

Well, well, well, it seems as if the anonymous editor over at CRN.com has a problem with an emergent/emerging church’s gathering due to the adult beverages they served.

Oddly enough, the anonymous editor had nothing to say about the issue of women in leadership, which as you can see was clearly laid out as egalitarian:

Rob and I had talked about the conversation we would have about women in leadership. I was excited for this conversation because I knew how Rob had courageously led his own church through the change of an all male leadership structure to include women on every level of leadership.

Now, for those not paying attention, ODMs have taken a hard line stance against women in church leadership. So why the sudden bout of silence on such a nice big juicy target? It probably has something to do with the fact that Ingrid is busily setting herself up not just as an authority within a church, but as an authority over many churches.

So there it is. If you’re an ODM its ok to take a completely anti-scriptural view of alcohol, yet ignore what is a much stronger case against female leadership, all because you happen to have a big female voice on your team.

Turns out sola scriptura is an ODM punchline.

Occasionally while on the internet I get sucked into the proverbial “rabbit hole”; Someone links to someone who links to someone…and on it goes. Before long I’ve looked at a couple dozen pages and I’ve forgotten what I started looking at in the first place. Occasionally (very rarely) do I find things that are intriguing enough to post about but tonight was different…

Per my blog reader I started at ysmarko.com which contained the post entitled Emergents Cohorts and Denom Groups being an R.C.A. (Reformed Church of America) youth pastor I was drawn to this section of the post

Reformergent (Reformed) — this group is somewhat different from the others because it’s “interested in the interaction between Reformed theology and the emerging church movement.” Chris Case is the main man “minding the (occasional) gap.”

Excited to see what Reformed folk were adding to the “conversation” I strolled over to Reformergent to see what they were all about.

Which eventually led me to the post “The Contexualization Condrum” with the opening lines:

Recent posts by Phil Johnson and Andrew Jones, with added statements by John MacArthur, have recently caused a bit of conversation about the topic of Contextualization. Phil has a good exegesis of the text regarding Mars Hill…(emphasis mine)

Not being a gracious reader I assumed that this guy, Chris Case, at Reformergent must have not been reading the same Phil Johnson that I’ve been reading. Deciding that a look at the Pyro blog was in order; I trotted over and the very first post I see catches me off guard. Not for any other reason than Phil seems to take exception to being categorized as a hyper-calvinist or he takes exception to the definition of a hyper-calvinist; I’m not really sure. Uh…Anyway…where was I? Oh yeah…so the guy who says(maybe) Phil is a hyper-calvinist, C. Micheal Patton, runs reclaimingthemind.org. Which is an excellent blog about a lot of things but he had a great article entitled “What do you mean God is sovereign?’ Four Options”. Which in of itself was a great post but what I found most encouraging was the interaction between two commenter’s on that post. Here are their comments in their entirety.

******on 18 Apr 2008 at 2:05 am #

Hi,

I believe option two is the only rational, and importantly, the Biblical one. All the rest does not fit in with the picture the Bible paints God to be. In my opinion, option one comes close to the Islamic god. Option three seems to a dis-interested or at best, a moody god. Option four, an impotent god. Since the Bible clearly teaches God to have given us some free will, and is “intimately acquainted” with all our ways, and is very much potent, these options do not hold much water. God of option two is the Biblical God.

**** on 18 Apr 2008 at 2:24 am #

******,

I would be careful for using that term “biblical God”. There are devout Christians who claim to be “biblical” that would fall in all 4 of these categories. Thus, to claim your view to be the “biblical God” borders on narrow-mindedness and arrogance. There are lots of things that are “biblical” that are not orthodox in any case, and I personally wish Christians would completely drop the word from their vocabulary. It’s mainly used as ammunition for claiming that the person who holds to the “biblical view” is right and everybody else is wrong. Also, you could find proof-texts for all 4 views and thus claim to have the “biblical God”. I do believe there is such a thing as a “biblical God”, but that we can capture this in its entirety and have the audacity to think we’re completely right on everything just falls short of the mark. We all bring our own biases and sets of lenses to the text, regardless of how objective or “biblical” we claim to be. Sorry to rant, I’m not trying to be mean or get mad at you, I’m just trying to persuade you to be very cautious in using that term. Thanks

****

******on 18 Apr 2008 at 3:00 am #

****,

Thanks for your comments. This is the first time we both are interacting, and from reading your responses to other posts and comments, I should say that I like the way you interact, balancing sound arguments with humility.

Now, I am sorry that I come out as someone who is “completely right on everything”, but trust me, I never had such a thought anywhere in the recesses of my heart. What I was trying to say was that from studying the Bible in its entirety (not picking verses), we can safely come to the conclusion that option two depicts the God of the Bible more accurately than the other options. As you know, proof-texting don’t help much.

Thanks, brother, for your concern.

Occasionally my “Rabbit Hole” journeys lead me to some buried treasure. Tonight was one of those nights.

I’m sorry, but this over-the-top link at CRN is just ridiculous:

You may not have heard about The Shift yet, but you will – soon! Shifters, like pod people, are in our midst. Some of your friends and acquaintances could be shifters, only you don’t know it yet. Shifters have wormed their way into church leadership (pastors deacons, elders), worship services, Bible studies, Sunday school, seminaries, Christian schools, youth groups, camps. They lecture, write for Christian news sources and they’re all over the Internet. Now they’re touring the country. Many shifters are familiar faces on TV and have become media darlings. Browse through your local Christian bookstore and you’ll find their names lined up on shelves. Brian McLaren, Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, Marcus Borg, Dallas Willard, Leonard Sweet, Erwin McManus, Phyllis Tickle, Rob Bell, Dan Kimball, Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones, Scot McKnight, Eddie Gibbs, Ryan Bolger, Jeff & Sherry Maddock, Peter Rollins, to name a few. Every one of them are theological liberals!

Once again, Ken Silva attempted to take on Erwin McManus, claiming that his doctrine is no different than the new-aged philosophers of our day. Even though Silva has been proven wrong time and time again on this subject, he has to keep the juicy headlines coming to keep his hits up. What good is a prophetic discerner without a large, blind and angry following, ready to email and repost everything they have said?

Anyhow, I though this quote from his article was quite telling of where most of the ODMs stand on the gospel. It also shows the lovely twists they put on their stories. After informing the world that McManus had taught a seminary class at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary in Mill Valley, CA, he reacts to McManus saying that Spiritual leaders are essentially cultural architects who shape their culture. Silva’s response:

“Uh-huh, right. So that’s what caused each Apostle save John to be brutally murdered. These ambassadors for Jesus Christ were shaping their culture. Hardly”

What a strange quote from a man that is attempting to shape culture with the gospel. I mean, he runs two websites, does countless radio interviews, and apparently hears from God about who he should attack next. Despite all this, Ken Silva actually believes that the gospel has no power or affect on culture. You see, contrary to Mr. Silva, I actually believe and know that the gospel is good for teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness. If that doesn’t have a huge affect on the world and culture around us, something is wrong.

editor’s note: research tactics and quote splicing techniques used by ODMs may have been utilized in the making of this article.

Breaking News:

EASTON, PA - Today the CEO of Crayola announced it will only manufacture crayons in two colors: black and white.  The CEO was quoted as saying, “We have decided that anything that needs to be expressed by children can be done so using these hues, and that having other colors available to them will just lead them to imbellish the truth and promote post-modern thought.  Additionally, having all the extra colors might encourage children to try and see things from other children’s perspectives.  We at Crayola believe the only perspective children need to see is the correct one we tell them.  Because as we know, there is only one way to look at the world and the events that occur.”

“We are also pleased to announce that next month we will begin shipping our new product tentatively called “fundie-specs”.  When worn, these glasses give the wearer the astounding ability to see amazingly complex things in the simplest of ways.  When presented with a beautiful sunset with complex colors and shading, children will now see only a black circle descending into a white field.  It will make artistic presentation a much simpler endeavor.  We all know that children only need to worry about the bleak facts of the matter and not the stunning beauty.”