And what is their definition of "heavy-weight" ?

It's a cultic illiterate twisting into a new definition:

"In saying 'heavy-weight,' we mean those whose theologies incorporate the essence of the emerging church: mysticism, ecumenism, panentheism, interspirituality, down-playing the authority of Scripture, a non-biblical view of the atonement, and a kingdom-now eschatology."

Posted by: Cultbusters | May 16, 2008 3:24 PM

Christendom's history is replete with theological and ideological disputes that are entirely unChristian in their fallout.

Thousands have been tortured, murdered and martyred over such disputations, some that hardly anyone outside of the disputing experts are capable of fathoming. Probably the only "Christian" faction with clean hands in such atrocities is the Anabaptists, who sacrificed their own lives just as the early church martyrs did, at the murderous hands of various Catholic and Protestant inquisitors drunk on ideology.

These disputes have much of the same germ at their heart.

There's no spirit of love, unlike what's commanded in 1 Corinthians 13. Not only do the disputants not love their enemies, they cannot even love their Christian neighbors at all.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | May 16, 2008 4:25 PM

"And if Mr. McLaren does not have time to debate what he views as trifling criticism, why does he take the time to reference it at all? I'm not a fan of GBA attacks, but there are legitimate criticisms of the emergent movement which McLaren (as is typical) throws under the same bus."

You're right. There are just certain elements that should not even be dignified with a response. Now where's that bus?

Posted by: JamesMartin | May 16, 2008 5:11 PM

Brian,

Honestly who cares what the fearsome are about? They are children screaming at the whirlwind. Their spirituality (if one can really call it that) is based off legalistic and literal rendering of scripture. Many of them tend to worship the bible over the totality of God as if all of God is found in all of scripture. There is some truth to that but when they limit themselves to ignoring the Holy spirit in substantial ways they limit God. That's what they are doing now when they judge you or Kay Warren.

The Cultbusters of the world really don't know what they are talking about when they mention mysticism. Cults are secretive by nature, Christian mystics, Sufi mystics, Hebrew mystics and others are not. The problem is that they fear something they don't understand or know the history of.

I am a fearless person on this issue, but I can be fearful in other areas. I try to never be fearsome. I will let God do that.

p

Posted by: Payshun | May 16, 2008 6:00 PM

"This is an apt summation of McLaren's view of any and all criticism directed at his movement. As such, he picks from low-hanging fruit, ignoring the Marc Driscolls and Doug Wilsons of the world and focusing instead on the efforts of some largely unread watchblog."

I guess he can't handle such penetrating and lofty analysis like the above. Oh well, it's Brian's loss that he just can't attain that elevated level. But thanks for pointing that out in such a charitable manner. The next thing I would expect out of that McLaren guy would be to post pictures of the people whom he opposes with baking sprinkles all over their faces on a web site somewhere. Now that would take the cake and really drive your point home.

Posted by: JamesMartin | May 16, 2008 6:51 PM

"The next thing I would expect out of that McLaren guy would be to post pictures of the people whom he opposes with baking sprinkles all over their faces on a web site somewhere. "

That would be amusing if the gag weren't already taken.

Posted by: kevin s. | May 16, 2008 11:57 PM

The "unhappy trails" bunch do bear watching - they managed to sabotage Shane Claiborne's college appearance several months back - as documented here.

Posted by: N. M. Rod | May 17, 2008 1:44 AM

I am a 61 year old grandmother who, until rather recently, never heard of this rift between Christian conservatives and Christian liberals.
I'm still trying to assimilate it and, in a way, figure out which way I tend.
Perhaps you folks could help me out. Humor me. Analyze me. Tell me what I am because this whole idea of Christians versus Christians is blowing my mind!
Let's see:
I pay taxes but do not consider taxation a tithe, i.e., what goes to Caesar is his and what I give to God is His. Even so, some years what I give to God out weighs what I give to Caesar and I am perfectly happy with that ratio especially because it is my CHOICE. No one is coercing me to give what I give. Even so, I find confiscatory taxation wrong and I could work myself up about the high rate of taxes I pay but it ain't worth it so I just always vote Republican and see what happens regarding my taxes.
Years ago when I was in my twenties, I voted Democrat.....once. For Hubert H. Humphrey. But then along came Roe v Wade and the Democrats have always seemed to deem it an acceptable endeavor to snuff out innocent unborn babies and most Republicans did not, so I started voting Republican. I don't feel strongly one way or another about capital punishment but it does seem odd to me that (apparently) some Christians nowadays think that abortion, i.e., killing of the innocent, is acceptable but capital punishment which is ending the life (killing) of the non-innocent is kosher.
I asked a "liberal Christian" once how he justified his support of politicians (generally speaking, Democrats) who support "choice" and he said something about abortion can only be ended through prayer and changing people's hearts. Period. Nevermind, I thought, that in the meantime millions of lives are being ended whilst we wait for the hardened of heart to soften their hearts toward their own offspring. I can't resist going back to the Hitler example: where would a whole lot of incarcerated Jews have been if the Allies had simply "prayed" for Hitler to have a change of heart and stop murdering Jews and Poles and anyone else in his path?
Let's now move onto the subject of the poor.
Poverty.
I've been to Africa. I've been to and seen and spent some time in places where millions of folks are living in mudhuts with no electricity or running water or much food to speak of. They wear rags. They have scabies and fungal diseases and malaria and dysentary and twisted limbs from lack of medical care. Many are blind and crippled and I've actually seen leprosy up close and personal.
To me, THAT'S poverty.
I've also seen pockets of a type of poverty here in the U.S. and have been intimately involved with trying to alleviate the problems that some "poor" people here have that have accompanied some really bad life style decisions: out of wedlock births being a big one. Children having children is a big one. Drugs and crime being, of course, among those really bad choices.
The rejection of a pretty good, totally free education is another one. Has anyone read what Bill Cosby has had to say about how recent generations of "his" people (American blacks) have totally blown it when it comes to making the most of the hard fought gains that came out of the 1960's civil rights movement? Google "Bill Cosby NAACP speech" to find it.
This all leads me back to the question.....What am I? I like giving and doing so blesses me like nothing else in this life. No one who knows me would call me greedy or selfish. I would like to see the tax rate go down because that would release more of my money for me to give away and back to God. I really like giving. So this is not particularly an economic issue. But, yet, in a way, it IS an economic issue because after going to Africa and seeing beyond "grinding poverty" and coming back to the U.S. and seeing folks who consider themselves poor and lacking because, Why?
Because they don't live a lifestyle like Oprah or Paris Hilton or PuffDaddy. They do have a government subsidized roof with utilites over their heads; they've got food stamps; Lord knows they DO have medical care and if you don't believe me go sit in the ER of any hospital in America; they've got access to free education through any level they can handle.
Well, what is it that they do not have? If they were born to a teenage mother (and I mean early teens not 18 or 19) and they do not have ANY contact with whomever it was that fathered them....and that mother's own mother is still in her twenties and her grandmother is in her forties and this has been perpetuated for generations and no one wants to say that this Emperor is stark naked and if someone does say so they are branded a greedy racist.....then they have a problem that just continues to grow and nothing ever gets resolved. And then you get everyone fighting about it, including Christians which is REALLY pathetic and you have little old ladies like me wondering what the hell is going on here?
Is abortion wrong or is it not?
How much money should a government reasonably put toward its poor and what should that government reasonably expect in return regarding what is done with that money that is being dispensed?
Is it a good thing to pay children to have children?
How should a godly person feel about his taxes being spent to support a godless system that perpetuates something as loathsome as millions of out of wedlock births every year?
I've gone on this long and have not even broached the subject of gay marriages which also, so it seems, is a matter of great discussion these days.
I mean what the hell is going on here?
I am not nor have I ever been a "follower" of some of the traditionally ascribed Religious Righters. Like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or James Dobson or those weird people who got themselves into so much trouble.....Jim and FannyFaye Baker or whatever their names are. I've never joined up with them or their ilk. It wasn't that I disagreed with them, I just didn't like their MO. And those people who are on the "Christian" television station nowadays pretty much horrify me. I mean, God bless 'em and everything but Whoa. I cannot turn the dial fast enough when some of them pop up. All I can think of is move over Elmer Gantry. I just tell myself that they love Jesus too, probably, and it takes all kinds to work the Kingdom of God.
If anyone out there reads this and cares to respond, I really, really would appreciate it.
In the meantime, let's start thinking about my next question: What is Marxism and how does it apply to us today? Is Marxism a godless form of government or is it not? And is it ever acceptable for a Christian for vote for a Marxist?

Posted by: God wants to kill you. | May 17, 2008 9:03 PM

"From my observations in the last couple of threads, James, you seem to start it, and Kevin, you can't resist responding."

I respond to everyone who addresses me (or try to) on this blog, or else I would not participate. I have not insulted James personally, so how do my responses reflect poorly on Christ?

Posted by: kevin s. | May 18, 2008 12:20 AM

Re Aids: Is it a punishment from God?

All sickness comes from the pit of hell.
Sickness and injury never come from the Father. Period.
It is NEVER the Father's will to inflict sickness or injury upon anyone....Christians or non-Christians; Believers or non-Believers.
Period.
All have come short of the glory of God. Sin is sin. If God were going about dispensing illness for sins, we would all be dead.
NEVERTHELESS, we do reap what we sow. We do suffer consequences for our behavior.
Not only do WE suffer the consequences of our behavior but others around us can suffer from our choices.
Even so, it is still the will of the Father to heal and deliver...always.
We can read it in the Gospels: Jesus ALWAYS healed everyone who came to Him for healing. He never sent anyone away unhealed. His "food" was to do the will of the Father who sent Him (John 4:34) We can, therefore, conclude that it is always the will of the Father to heal sickness and injury. God never, never, never inflicts illness or injury. It is not in His nature to do so. He does not inflict sickness or injury.
You will not find that message in the New Testament.

Posted by: God wants to kill you. | May 18, 2008 11:20 AM

God wants to kill you,

I am not going to answer all of your questions but I can answer a few. I can't tell you what you are. Only you can do that. I realize for you and many other people that would call themselves conservatives abortion is the central issue. Abortion is a terrible choice many make for a host of different reasons. It's evil but unlike other institutionalized forms of injustice it's simply not the same as sexism, racism...

Individual women make choices to have abortions.

I am a liberal, have been for years. I am a liberal Christian that follows the teachings of the mystics. I just prefer the depth found in their teachings compared to other places.

Abortion is institutionalized, but it's an individualistic form of sin allowed within the government. The corporate aspect of that sin is in the government's allowance of it.

I don't vote specifically democrat on everything, I vote Green on many things. I support Gay marriage as a secular issue for those outside of the church. I also help to end a lot of different forms of injustice.

"Is abortion wrong or is it not?"

It's wrong.

"Well, what is it that they do not have?"

I have worked among the urban poor for the last ten years. I can tell you what they do not have. They don't have safe neighborhoods, neighborhood upkeep (individual or city provided,) access to healthy food, access to great role models, parental support, and a sense that they matter.

It takes years to heal the wounds life gives it's people and unfortunately it's going to take a while.

p

Posted by: Payshun | May 18, 2008 4:08 PM

It sounds as though McLaren would have us ignore the Bible's warnings against false teaching and not take seriously the scriptural commands not to associate with those who are Christians but depart from Biblical truth and morality. I'm not certain if any of those mentioned are guilty of either, although from what I know about the teaching of Jay Bakker it seems as though he may be.

It is telling that McLaren labels as "fearsome" those who are simply trying to be faithful to teachings that are pretty clear in scripture. And why is it that those who agree with McLaren and others like him regularly accuse those who disagree with them of being "less than fully informed?" Maybe McLaren doesn't agree with his detractors because he is less than fully informed. The fact is we can all be "fully informed" (whatever that means...I'm guessing only God is truly fully informed) and still disagree.

McLaren's article sounds a little whiny and amounts to "If you disagree with me, just shut up." By the way, one can be critical of Kay Warren participating in this conference but still applaud her for the good work she's doing.

Posted by: Brian | May 18, 2008 7:26 PM

Self-righteous fear-mongering has historically been the eminent domain of the conservative right. Check out Crunchy Con and all the bulloney there about the implications of the California Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage for the latest verification of that fact.

Posted by: canucklehead | May 19, 2008 12:18 AM

"Reprobate minds of liberal origins often attack viciously those who support a man and a women as the cornerstone of society . The best resource for a child to be nourished . Your above post provides an atomsphere that liberals have provided that have caused such a rift in our culture that allows no one to disagree without being viciously , and hatefully lambasted." 'Truth'

While you go ahead and viciously and hatefully lambaste liberals.

Posted by: JamesMartin | May 19, 2008 6:29 AM

I see Brian's looked over and pulled out the emergo handbook and flipped to the chapter: How to deal with criticism. It's an easy checklist.
1. Ignore substance of critique. CHECK
2. Ad Hominien attacks on critic. CHECK
3. Exude smug superiority. CHECK

Posted by: Wonky73 | May 19, 2008 2:40 PM

Truth.

Uh-huh.

Posted by: canucklehead | May 19, 2008 10:12 PM

Oops:

To be consistent with Brian McLaren's classification, I should have written "fearsome" instead of "fearless" in my first sentence above.

D

Posted by: Don | May 21, 2008 12:08 PM

If you know Brian personally, you know that he really doesn't like to put people into neat little boxes. He doesn't believe that is the way of Christ.

But categories are useful, and there are many things one can't really talk meaningfully about without using them. Brian's post does observe that people move from one category to another. He is trying to describe characteristics that people fall into, not to put people into neat boxes, and then tape the boxes shut.

Fear is an important factor, one that Christ addressed directly, recognizing its importance. When we are gripped by fear, we fail to follow Christ's call on our lives.

I'm glad Brian hasn't been intimidated by all the attacks on him, even calling him the "son of Satan." People who stick their necks out for the Gospel almost always get attacked. What Brian is saying is that we should stick our necks out for the Gospel anyway. We should not be afraid, because our trust is in God, not our popularity, our physical well-being, or our material resources.

There are times when we need to respond to criticism, and times when we just need to stay focused on the tasks before us that God has given us. Brian has done some of both. The "rule" about it is that we seek God's guidance and follow it.

Posted by: Bill Samuel | May 22, 2008 9:25 PM