I'm still in the process of watching Elliott's video (I only have time to take it in installments). I am eager to see the whole thing, but I can make a few observations from the first half.
In viewing, it is often hard for me to know who is speaking, and whether it is an emergent leader or a critic of the movement. Often, there is a video of an emergent leader speaking, as it turns out, without audio. A voiceover is being played simultaneously, which is not that of the person portrayed on the screen. It took me some time to figure out that the audio is often the voice of a critic talking about the person I am watching, rather than the actual audio belonging to the video clip.
Since I am not really that familiar with the distinctive views of the emergents, I don't know exactly what to expect their position to be on the matter that is being discussed by the narration, so that the content of the audio, alone, does not clue me in as to which side the audio is supporting—as it might for someone more conversant in the controversy.
The narration is often paraphrasing or summarizing the views of the emergent leader on the screen, so that I often find my brain trying to hear the speaker's actual words, but instead having his views represented by someone who is critical of them. I have learned from experience that a man's views are not most reliably learned from his critics' representation of them.
When the emergent leaders' microphones are actually on, many of the things they are saying seem to me very innocuous, so that it is often not clear if what is being presented is something that is intended to be alarming about the movement or not. Often there is no follow-up commentary provided to indicate what is perceived as objectionable in the quote.
Since many of the sound bites are too brief to catch the context of the speaker's sentence or two (and can be taken either in a way that is alarming or in a way that is not), I am not always sure why the quote is included, and on what basis it is being criticized. A lot of the quotes seem uncontroversial to me.
A few of the persons who are criticizing the leaders seem to have abrasive spirits—more so than do the emergent guys—and seem to be alarmed about theological fine points about which good Christians can disagree. Frankly, they sometimes remind me of myself, at an earlier time in my ministry, when enforcing strict doctrinal conformity seemed an important and godly mission.
I have gotten to the point in the video where some of the emergents are saying things with which I would strongly disagree—assuming I am understanding their statements correctly. We'll see how it comes out.
what do you think of this vid ?
Re: what do you think of this vid ?
Okay, I have finished watching the video, and I agree (especially from the second half) that the emergent leaders have been both undiscerning and careless in their statements, and have invited much of the criticisms they receive from the more orthodox believers. There are things they say with which I strongly disagree. I can tell that by some of the things they are quoted as saying—regardless of the context of their statements. I have never read enough of the authors to pick up their views on many issues.
I would disagree with them on the homosexual issue, on the contemplative prayer issue, and on their merging of other religions with that of Christ (seeing Mohammed, for example, as a true prophet!). The comment about Yoga and Christianity having the same goals, namely to live a full and complete life, convinces me that the man who made the statement does not know what Christ is about. I also am alarmed at the understanding of the gospel represented in several of the sound bites. I have listened to a few audio books of Brian McLaren, and have not heard him expound on these things in these ways, which makes me wonder if only some of the leaders hold the worst of these views. I am nonplussed by their recommendation of New Age authors as if they are, in some measure, their gurus.
I am less concerned than some as to the exact theory of the atonement that one finds scripturally convincing (though I favor the penal substitution view myself), but the statements about "divine child abuse" are clearly over the top. Even if someone thinks the penal view is not the best view to derive from their studies of scripture, and even if they privately hold that God, as well as they, would consider such a view "child abuse"—no one could be so sure of it being wrong as to render it risk-free to make such statements.
I have to say that most of the critics of the statements of emergent leaders would probably not speak quite so harshly of some equally audacious comments which were made by Luther, Calvin, and other leaders of more-traditional evangelical movements. If I am to take the quoted comments of the emergent leaders as their true positions on things, then I would say that the emergent church's "gospel" may be as different from the biblical Gospel as is the Calvinist "gospel" (that claims Jesus did not die for all and does not desire all to be saved) and the dispensationalist "gospel" (which claims that the gospel Jesus preached was for a different dispensation). Both of which are usually tolerated within evangelical circles.
I fear that I might leap too quickly to judgment of any of these men, if I do not hear enough to know how they would nuance some of their most egregious-sounding statements taken as short clips. From the small portion given, I could not necessarily say I disagree with a quote from Brian McLaren given near the end (at about 1:49), where he said:
"The gospel is the message of the kingdom of God, and the message of the kingdom of God is the message of reconciliation, calling all people together into one unified, new humanity."
McLaren is seen talking beyond this point, but his voice is cut off and the voice of Gary Gilley comes on explaining that McLaren believes that we are already in the kingdom. Both McLaren's statement about the message of reconciliation for all people, and Gilley's summary of McLaren's view that we are in the kingdom, differ from Calvinism and from dispensationalism, respectively, but both statements can be abundantly supported from scripture. What we are not able to discover from the abbreviated clip is whether McLaren is a) postmillennial, b) universalist, c) inclusivist, or d) merely Armenian.
My guess is that some of the so-call emergent leaders are more heterodox than others—and some of the ones I heard on this video seem to have departed entirely from Christian theology. The problem is knowing how homogenous the movement is or is not. I personally find Rob Bell a little creepy. A few of the other guys seem merely to be rebelling against the norm. Some of those in the movement may be thoughtful evangelicals who are simply letting themselves think very far out of the box, and who are unwisely making unguarded statements.
I see a few issues (even some deemed controversial) similarly to some of these men, and some of their comments that are presented here as heretical did not strike me as very controversial, from my point of view. However,hearing the irresponsible things that some of these leaders are willing to say would certainly keep me from any formal association with a church that identifies itself by the label "emergent," because of my strong disagreements with its spokesmen on many issues. If a Christian is not in agreement with the most visible spokesmen for a movement, then he would be foolish to wear their label.
I would disagree with them on the homosexual issue, on the contemplative prayer issue, and on their merging of other religions with that of Christ (seeing Mohammed, for example, as a true prophet!). The comment about Yoga and Christianity having the same goals, namely to live a full and complete life, convinces me that the man who made the statement does not know what Christ is about. I also am alarmed at the understanding of the gospel represented in several of the sound bites. I have listened to a few audio books of Brian McLaren, and have not heard him expound on these things in these ways, which makes me wonder if only some of the leaders hold the worst of these views. I am nonplussed by their recommendation of New Age authors as if they are, in some measure, their gurus.
I am less concerned than some as to the exact theory of the atonement that one finds scripturally convincing (though I favor the penal substitution view myself), but the statements about "divine child abuse" are clearly over the top. Even if someone thinks the penal view is not the best view to derive from their studies of scripture, and even if they privately hold that God, as well as they, would consider such a view "child abuse"—no one could be so sure of it being wrong as to render it risk-free to make such statements.
I have to say that most of the critics of the statements of emergent leaders would probably not speak quite so harshly of some equally audacious comments which were made by Luther, Calvin, and other leaders of more-traditional evangelical movements. If I am to take the quoted comments of the emergent leaders as their true positions on things, then I would say that the emergent church's "gospel" may be as different from the biblical Gospel as is the Calvinist "gospel" (that claims Jesus did not die for all and does not desire all to be saved) and the dispensationalist "gospel" (which claims that the gospel Jesus preached was for a different dispensation). Both of which are usually tolerated within evangelical circles.
I fear that I might leap too quickly to judgment of any of these men, if I do not hear enough to know how they would nuance some of their most egregious-sounding statements taken as short clips. From the small portion given, I could not necessarily say I disagree with a quote from Brian McLaren given near the end (at about 1:49), where he said:
"The gospel is the message of the kingdom of God, and the message of the kingdom of God is the message of reconciliation, calling all people together into one unified, new humanity."
McLaren is seen talking beyond this point, but his voice is cut off and the voice of Gary Gilley comes on explaining that McLaren believes that we are already in the kingdom. Both McLaren's statement about the message of reconciliation for all people, and Gilley's summary of McLaren's view that we are in the kingdom, differ from Calvinism and from dispensationalism, respectively, but both statements can be abundantly supported from scripture. What we are not able to discover from the abbreviated clip is whether McLaren is a) postmillennial, b) universalist, c) inclusivist, or d) merely Armenian.
My guess is that some of the so-call emergent leaders are more heterodox than others—and some of the ones I heard on this video seem to have departed entirely from Christian theology. The problem is knowing how homogenous the movement is or is not. I personally find Rob Bell a little creepy. A few of the other guys seem merely to be rebelling against the norm. Some of those in the movement may be thoughtful evangelicals who are simply letting themselves think very far out of the box, and who are unwisely making unguarded statements.
I see a few issues (even some deemed controversial) similarly to some of these men, and some of their comments that are presented here as heretical did not strike me as very controversial, from my point of view. However,hearing the irresponsible things that some of these leaders are willing to say would certainly keep me from any formal association with a church that identifies itself by the label "emergent," because of my strong disagreements with its spokesmen on many issues. If a Christian is not in agreement with the most visible spokesmen for a movement, then he would be foolish to wear their label.
-
BrotherElliott
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 6:19 pm
Re: what do you think of this vid ?
Thanks for the feedback Steve. I want to be slow in leaping to judgment of these men also. Honestly, I think most of them are probably sincere but misguided. Others may in fact be wolves in sheep's clothing. God knows. I want to continue praying for them and hopefully be less "abrasive" in speaking the truth in the future.
I know that the majority of the critics we interviewed do consider themselves Calvinist, Lutheran, etc. However, at least Joe Schimmel and myself would speak just as strongly against Calvin and Luther and other of the more traditional evangelical leaders as we would Emergent. In fact, I'd like to do a future project on Calvinism, but wanted to work with some of these bros on the Emergent movement first.
Schimmel actually produced the Submerging Church video, the trailer of which began this topic discussion. His film is based on our full interview with him if people wanted to see more on Emergent which we edited out of our film. At least one portion of it has been posted on YouTube called "Rick Warren, Emergents and Muslims": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiMYRzFR ... ure=relmfu
Concerning Brian McLaren and the Kingdom of God, McLaren says that Jesus used hell to "threaten those who excluded sinners and other undesirables, showing that God’s righteousness was compassionate and merciful, that God’s kingdom welcomed the undeserving, that for God there was no out-group" (McLaren, Brian. The Last Word After That. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003. p.74). He says, "maybe God's plan is an opt-out plan, not an opt-in one. If you want to stay out of the party, you can. Nobody will force you to enjoy it." (McLaren, Brian. The Last Word After That. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2005. p.138). I'd have to double-check the context of those quotes again, but anyhow.
I know that the majority of the critics we interviewed do consider themselves Calvinist, Lutheran, etc. However, at least Joe Schimmel and myself would speak just as strongly against Calvin and Luther and other of the more traditional evangelical leaders as we would Emergent. In fact, I'd like to do a future project on Calvinism, but wanted to work with some of these bros on the Emergent movement first.
Schimmel actually produced the Submerging Church video, the trailer of which began this topic discussion. His film is based on our full interview with him if people wanted to see more on Emergent which we edited out of our film. At least one portion of it has been posted on YouTube called "Rick Warren, Emergents and Muslims": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiMYRzFR ... ure=relmfu
Concerning Brian McLaren and the Kingdom of God, McLaren says that Jesus used hell to "threaten those who excluded sinners and other undesirables, showing that God’s righteousness was compassionate and merciful, that God’s kingdom welcomed the undeserving, that for God there was no out-group" (McLaren, Brian. The Last Word After That. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003. p.74). He says, "maybe God's plan is an opt-out plan, not an opt-in one. If you want to stay out of the party, you can. Nobody will force you to enjoy it." (McLaren, Brian. The Last Word After That. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2005. p.138). I'd have to double-check the context of those quotes again, but anyhow.
Re: what do you think of this vid ?
Hi Elliott,
I did not think you were harsh or abrasive in the video. You were not one that I was thinking of in that comment.
When I hear those two quotes from McLaren, I think, "What if I had heard Chuck Smith or Greg Laurie make those exact same statements?" I think I could have found them agreeable. If I were to hear a preacher toward whom I otherwise held no suspicions say, "for God there was no out-group," I think I would have taken him to mean the same things Paul said in places like Colossians 3:11 or Galatians 3:28. Of course, if I heard a Unitarian saying this, I might assume that he means that all people are acceptable to God even without repentance or faith. In that case, I would just chalk that up to liberal nonsense. I am not sure which way McLaren means it, but, not knowing better, I would have thought he meant it in the more Pauline sense.
I think the same way when I read McLaren say, "maybe God's plan is an opt-out plan, not an opt-in one. If you want to stay out of the party, you can. Nobody will force you to enjoy it." I think of Matthew 22 and the wedding feast parable. The invitation (even the ultimatum) seems to be extended to all. Those who opt-out are lost. When I read 2 Corinthians 5:19 and Romans 5:18, I think that God in Christ provided salvation for the whole world. When I read John 3:17-19, it seems that those who are ultimately condemned are excluded because they have chosen to reject the Light, and thus, have opted-out.
McLaren's words seem, to me, to be capable of more than one meaning—one of which is not really alarming. Over the years, many people have found fault with my teaching (to my mind, without warrant), which inclines me to take another man's ambiguous statements in the most agreeable light that the facts available to me will allow. If I knew more bad things about McLaren's views, it might be that I would not have the option of taking the ambiguity charitably.
I do agree that many of the statements of emergent leaders sound simply heretical (though I also heard some statements from the pulpit of the Calvary Chapel I attended this morning that struck me as heretical). I would rather dialogue with the people whom I perceive to be off-base, than to close down the lines of communication with them by taking their comments in a manner that might seem to them to be unfair.
I did not think you were harsh or abrasive in the video. You were not one that I was thinking of in that comment.
When I hear those two quotes from McLaren, I think, "What if I had heard Chuck Smith or Greg Laurie make those exact same statements?" I think I could have found them agreeable. If I were to hear a preacher toward whom I otherwise held no suspicions say, "for God there was no out-group," I think I would have taken him to mean the same things Paul said in places like Colossians 3:11 or Galatians 3:28. Of course, if I heard a Unitarian saying this, I might assume that he means that all people are acceptable to God even without repentance or faith. In that case, I would just chalk that up to liberal nonsense. I am not sure which way McLaren means it, but, not knowing better, I would have thought he meant it in the more Pauline sense.
I think the same way when I read McLaren say, "maybe God's plan is an opt-out plan, not an opt-in one. If you want to stay out of the party, you can. Nobody will force you to enjoy it." I think of Matthew 22 and the wedding feast parable. The invitation (even the ultimatum) seems to be extended to all. Those who opt-out are lost. When I read 2 Corinthians 5:19 and Romans 5:18, I think that God in Christ provided salvation for the whole world. When I read John 3:17-19, it seems that those who are ultimately condemned are excluded because they have chosen to reject the Light, and thus, have opted-out.
McLaren's words seem, to me, to be capable of more than one meaning—one of which is not really alarming. Over the years, many people have found fault with my teaching (to my mind, without warrant), which inclines me to take another man's ambiguous statements in the most agreeable light that the facts available to me will allow. If I knew more bad things about McLaren's views, it might be that I would not have the option of taking the ambiguity charitably.
I do agree that many of the statements of emergent leaders sound simply heretical (though I also heard some statements from the pulpit of the Calvary Chapel I attended this morning that struck me as heretical). I would rather dialogue with the people whom I perceive to be off-base, than to close down the lines of communication with them by taking their comments in a manner that might seem to them to be unfair.