Scot,
Your letter shows why you are such a significant voice in the emerging conversation. Thanks for posting it.

I am somewhat of a recovering baptist and would classify myself as being in the evangelical camp. I have read some of McLaren. I have never met the man but I have great appreciation for him and for his provocative writings. GO caused me to re-think some things not on lines of right-wrong, but along lines of seeing through the eyes of Jesus in pastoral and evangelistic ministry. I like his idea of ‘purple’. That, to a large degree, describes where I am landing in my political journey. Shall we order purple coffee mugs?? You know it isn’t a movement until there are coffee mugs!
Thanks for a thoughtful post.

Scot,
That was amazing, and such a needful sentiment. Thank you for posting it.

Your post makes me wonder whether the invention of things like the printing press or the internet has brought harm to our ability to listen and hope for Christ best in oneanother. When I read Generous Orthodoxy what I saw was a mislead Orthodoxy, a doubting not questioning Orthodoxy. Had I of known of the man, his temperment, his disposition, then I would have known that for him the conversation aspect was the largest part of his theology, that conclusions where not what he was going for but rather brutal honesty that the assumed questions we answer are actually very difficult questions to raise…
This leaves me wondering how we can be both careful and caring for the Churches health by warning her of heterodoxy and praxy while also allowing those we’re critiquing to be human and broken vessels in their Fathers hands? It also leaves me questioning what role and value polemics has in the Emerging Churches? I’m noticeing the differences between McLaren and Burke in your postings, but I’m struggling with understanding how those difference’s play out in weighing these two very different men.
Thanks for this intimate portrait you’ve given us Scot.

My associate pastor who is young but wise and insightful says he may not know all the nuances of theology that Brian and the people who criticize him get into, but he knows this: he can see what Brian’s theology does to him (kind, gentle, irenic) and he likes it. And conversely, he can see what the theology of many of Brian’s critics do to them, and it frightens him.

Anthony,
I’ve posted my thoughts about Spencer’s misguided book. I like him, but I think his theology is so confused it has to be said that confusion is not the way forward.
Bob,
Will we ever learn that character and life cannot be divorced from what we believe, but that they actually reveal what we truly believe? I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve participated in discussions when I thought — maybe the person won, but I’d not want to be like them; or maybe I won, but “who” was revealed?

I was smitten by “New Kind” and have found all of Brian’s books refreshing and stimulating. Yes he can be a real “provocateur.” His books have not raised any serious doubts for me–they have disabused me of many granite notions.
The person that spins my head around (yet) is Steve Chalke–but talk about praxis! Chalke is about as tame as Sampson provoked.

Scot,
I’ve read all but one of Brian’s books and I’ve heard him teach several sessions on emerging issues. I’ve chatted with him only briefly a few times after the sessions. I agree with your character assessment of this brother. I like thought-provokers—people who bust open our received categories and scramble them. Howard Hendricks use to tell us, “All true learning only occurs after you are thoroughly confused.”
I heard Brian do a seminar on the sociology of doctrine. He stated that most of us have only been exposed to ‘the history of doctrine,’ i.e., the Creeds, the Councils, the reform movements, revivals, etc. He then led us in the social/cultural settings and impact of the doctrines. What an eye-opener!! A lot of evil orthopraxy was done in the name of biblical orthodoxy. I can’t shake the fact the final judgment is not a doctrinal exam, but a sifting based upon the way we actually live…especially in response to the needy and marginalized of the world.

Sacred Journey » Blog Archive » Letters to Emerging Christians

[...] Scot McKnight (blog) has managed to place himself in a unique position. He is an orthodox theologian (if I may be so “generously orthodox” to include an Arminian who upholds the Trinity, full divinity of Christ, necessity of a substitutionary atoning death, bodily resurrection of Christ, the Word-of-God authority of Scripture, etc., as “orthodox”) who has the ear and respect of many within the emerging church movement. He is unabashedly “emergent sympathetic” and yet unafraid to criticize where criticism is due. [...]

Clearly, I need to read GO. I have read New Kind and loved it, primarily because it left me asking questions and growing in my own faith and understanding as a result.
I think you make a powerful and valid point. If the real point of all of this is to relate to God, that process (and it is a process) is going to be greatly helped by constructive conversation–by asking challenging questions and struggling past assumptions to whatever it was that caused someone to make such an assumption in the first place. I think this scares a lot of Christians because we have come to falsely believe that it is our “rightness” that makes us right, rather than God’s righteousness. We are afraid of being wrong, afraid of not knowing.
But we will never grow if we just pretend to know and refuse to ask. We have to be more willing to engage in discussion (I like what you said about that) for the sake of growth, not for the sake of proving ourselves right.
Good stuff.

I like Brian a whole lot. What you said here is true: As a person, Brian is gracious and kind, disarming and quiet, and unlike most Christian leaders Iâ??ve encountered, the sort of man that makes you feel important when he is with you. I had the same experience.
What I liked about his books is that he is making an attempt to forge a generous spirit toward those who differ with evangelicals, to also shine a light on evangelical inconsistencies and limitations. He does it in an irenic spirit (as one of you said). What I find fascinating is the way so many evangelicals return the favor with anything but kindness.
I don’t always line up with his thinking, but I do like him very, very much.
Julie

Scot,
This is fascinating and insightful. I freely admit that my take on it is different. I concur with your summary of Brian as a provocative speaker, and I appreciate speakers like that since they challenge many unexamined assumptions. But there are two areas where my assessment differs. I think that Brian is frequently critical of conservative evangelicals (perhaps I only read the interviews where he does that). And when he does that he doesn’t always fairly represent them, which is frustrating. Is that good orthopraxy?
The second area concerns the outcome of his provocative statements which seem to me to be an attempt to persuade evangelicals to change their theology (particularly of the cross and the future judgement). But that persuasion is away from historic evangelical convictions. Is that good orthopraxy?
Am I being fair?

From a kind orthodoxian: How one’s theology makes us feel is mostly irrelevant. Does it stand the scrutiny of Biblical interpretation, both historical and present day. When a large ship is loosed from its moorings it can remain close to the dock for a time, but eventually it will drift.
The church should loose the moorings of stale tradition, harsh judgment, doctrinal pride, character assault, verbal badminton, and using the Sword to cut off the ears of listeners (Peter).
But we should strengthen the moorings of the essential doctrines of redemptive truth based on New Testament teachings. And anyone who attempts to untie those moorings, whether emergent or fundamentalist, should be lovingly but decisively warned. If he refuses correction he should be relieved of tampering with the ecclesiastical vessel’s core teachings until he agrees to leave them intact. Methodology has much wider dialogue parameters than redemptive truth.

Great letter. I liked how you presented him as provoking people to ask questions. Just the morning I received an email from my mother-in-law (who up til now refused to engage emerging ideas and didn’t like that we are McLarenites) – she just heard a radio show where Gloria Gaither discussed The Secret Message of Jesus. She said Gaither had a lot of good things to say about the book and that it raised some good questions for Christians to think about. I found it very ironic that its McLaren through Gaither that is getting my MIL to think about some of these issues!

Scot,
Thank you for reflecting the spirit of the continually emerging church in your words of humility and vulnerability. What is so refreshing, at least to me, is that continued desire to not neglect the head or the hands when it comes to theology, but to meet in the middle – at the heart. That is what Jesus encouraged us to consider and to dwell on, this question of “where is my heart in this?”
I agree with Julie a few posts ago – I don’t always line up with his thinking, but his thinking always forces me to line up with Christ. The Church needs more who will facilitate that movement and direction. Thanks for being one of those, Scot.

Pastor David – thoughts from an unfinished servant of the church in the little apple

[...] Scot McKnight has a wonderful letter on his site, The Jesus Creed. [...]

I am only vaguely aware of Brian McLaren, so I will refrain from commenting on him in a persaonal manner.
I have no problem, though, with someone causing me to question. Regardless of personality, I always aim to stick to answering the substance of a question. While some may grate and offend with their presentation, ultimately, their personality is irrelevant. Some are, however, much easier to listen to and converse with than others.
When posed with a question,, though, what is the purpose of examining such a question?
Is it to pursue and acquire contextual truth?
Is it to initiate the paradign shift of a particular worldview?
Is it to simply engage in the process of gathering and exploring information and ideas?
Is it to accomplish some other purpose?
The “why” of asking and answering is vitally important, personalities notwithstanding.

I have read most of McLaren’s books. His perspective is quite a bit different than mine since I grew up in the SBC. I love his writing and wrestling. I never recommend his books because I have met few people that I believe can handle the wrestling and doubting. I think for the most part people speak violently without reading him or without properly understanding his voice. I do disagree with many things that he says, but without his books I doubt I would have ever made it out of the box.

At the heart of why people react so violently against McLaren is that he encourages questions, while much (if not most) of the evangelical world holds that faith is the absence of doubt. Since McLaren calls himself an evangelical AND provokes doubt, people get upset.
Thanks for this post Scot. McLaren, for better or worse, has really become a focal point in the EC and this can help people understand what’s going on better.

anthony in #4
i appreciate your honesty and willingness to change your views on people and their writtings (contributions) to theology. if more people had your openness to think and change and be open we would be in a better place i think…thank you

I just have to second your comment on Brian’s character. My husband works for the DMin program at Fuller and comes into contact with many truly great teachers and leaders in the church today. He recently told me that, of everyone who has passed through his classrooms there, Brian is by far one of the most christ-like he has ever met.

Scot,
Thanks for sharing this. It gives me a window in seeing Brian that I previously did not have. Though I have respected him I need this nuance you provide.
And I agree and/or empathize with many of the comments here.
My experience is that if you question certain things, or show that something is not as cut and dried as thought, then you’re considered off-track. And what is more disappointing than that is that I find that such people more often than not, are not willing to discuss and have a conversation on it.
But what is encourgaging is the openess one can find from many, today- among those who would not call themselves emergents. You really find both.

Thanks Scot for this post. My experience of Brian (especially reading his books and writing) has been the same even without meeting him face to face yet. I’m in Germany right now, and it’s interesting to see the different challenges people face in a more secularized, and even post-Christian contexts. Then I’m forced to re-look at my own where as Christians we are a minority in a dominant muslim contexts. And to see how Brian tries to work out his theology and praxis in the USA (and even through his travels) has been helpful. Your input also bring a balanced and frank attempt to move us forward in these fast changing times. And because much of Christianity in Malaysia or even in Asia especially the English speaking parts are influenced by “Evangelicalism” from the USA, I found Brian’s questions helpful and his character especially facing the critics exemplary.

It was John Milton, I believe, writing in the Areopagiticaâ??a ringing defense of the freedom of expression for all except, it turns out, Roman Catholicsâ??who said that an untested virtue is no virtue. My experience at a secular/liberal university is that an untested belief is no belief. I, therefore, look forward to reading GO.

Brian has a good heart, I’ve read all his books and briefly talked to him after a seminar. His best is A New Kind of Christian. He understands the use and construction of language and will not be boxed in a corner with questions. (he is an ex English professor) He is prophectic,provacative and challenges the status quo. He shakes people up in a good way.
The church he founded: Cedar Ridge Community; belief statement reads like any other mega-church. He aligns himself with causes that tend to be on the political left, but his rhetoric is purple.

Henry (#13):
Who decides what are “the essential doctrines of redemptive truth based on New Testament teachings”? You? Me? That person in Rome? Why do we have 50,000 different denominations in America, many of which teach radically opposing doctrines and yet all claim to be Christian and teach “the real truth of the Bible”? Different people arrive at different conclusions based on the same texts.
But let’s just assume, for a minute, that all Christians arrive at one single set of central redemptive truths of the Bible.
How should we behave based on those doctrines? If we don’t behave in accordance with the teachings of Christ, do we really believe in Him?
Practice is the proof of belief. That’s the whole point of Galations 5:19-23. When the Holy Spirit indwells us, there is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, et cetera, and if those qualities are not evident, we must question whether the person is truly Christian or not. “By their fruits, you shall know them.” A cherry tree does not produce acorns, and a fig tree that produces no fruit is damned, regardless of how much shade it provides.
Should we allow theologians to instruct us when their lives do not show the fruits of the Spirit? It doesn’t matter if what they teach is in line with Bible verses, because Satan himself can quote the Bible accurately. What matters is their fruit – because if that’s not there, then they really shouldn’t be teaching anybody.

Ian,
Presumably the apostles decided and 1 Cor. 15 is what they passed on.

peregrinatio » Sympathischer Brief

[...] Scot McKnight erklärt einer gewissen Emma, was er von Brian McLaren hält und beantwortet dabei eine ganze Reihe interessanter Fragen rund um das Thema emerging church. Lesenswert! [...]

Who decides what are â??the essential doctrines of redemptive truth based on New Testament teachingsâ??
The Holy Spirit is the decider, and yes, He must work through human instruments but that is and always will be the process. And faith is the liason by which the pirit transverses, and that is somewhat intangible. Practice is not the proof but makes the revelation more effective. Some Hindus are more humble, kind, and non-effacing than many Christians, does that make their theology correct?
Of course the flesh of man and the spirits of anti-christ have smeared the pristine clearity of God’s redemptive truth, but it is still an offer of grace and mercy, not the original plan of God. There is a Spiritual war and there have been casualties, and the Devil (remember him?) has hunted down those who he can destroy.
The current round table ecclesiastical/philisophical free for all will prove in the end not to be the enlightenment many hoped for, but it will ultimately be the death of absolute truth. One day He who is Truth will re-establish His Kingdom of Truth upon this very earth, and then, there will be no more discussion. Until then it will continue to be “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”. Sadly.

I was blessed to know Brian and his wife, Grace, when I was a teen. I grew up singing worship songs Brian wrote and listening to him speak. Few people in my life influenced my faith as much as he did, and it is definitely sad for me to see how he is treated by many evangelicals. Do I agree with everything Brian says and writes? No, but I look to him as one who loves the Lord with a passion that I aspire to. I wish everyone were fortunate enough to know him.

McKnight on McLaren at The Unnecessary Pastor

A follow-on letter to an Emerging Christian
Dear Scott and Emma,
Scott, thank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences with us through your blog. I have enjoyed reading your blog over the past year or so. I would enjoy meeting you in person someday.
I’ve never met Brian personally, …—–
[...] (read the rest here) [...]

I’ve had the opportunity to interact with Brian on a few occasions and I must concur with everything Scot says about him. I would do well to emulate a man like Brian McLaren.

Is Brian McLaren really as gracious and unassuming as you say? I mean in his writings, not his stage or coffee table persona. We know he has got that disarming â??conductâ? down. But what we write matters too, as you have rightly noted in your critique of Carsonâ??s book on emerging.
Much that I am learning about the emerging movement attracts me. I am a Professor in a Southern Baptist Seminary and am working hard to correct D.A Carson’s highly distorted reduction of the movement “almost” to the writings of Brian McLaren. And you. Scott, have been as helpful as any one person in my education on this matter. For that I am grateful. We do not know for sure how big the emerging movement is or will become. We do know that the Southern Baptist Convention is quite large. There are also many Southern Baptist pastors, mostly youngish ones, who are part of the emerging conversation. I am convinced that the SBC would benefit much from certain insights and emphases prized within the emerging movement conversation.
However, I do think that you give McLaren a bit of a pass regarding how gracious he is. He is, as you say a provocateur. For those he sees fit to caricature, critique, and often dismiss, (such as conservative evangelicals, you know, like Southern Baptists such as myself) the provocations sting, not only because we find that they hit their target (though they sometimes do) but because of the caricature element, the straw man knocked down. These reductionistic slams strike many of us as mean spirited. I am not sure the designation provocateur is a sufficient fig leaf for one so pumped up about praxis to hide behind.

The caricature element, the straw man knocked down, the reductionistic slams strike all of us as mean spirited – when directed against us.
So why do so many resort to this tactic when acting as a provacateur or to make a point? The rhetoric on both sides of this conversation generally drives me away.

My two cents, especially in light of DeVine’s post:
There’s much about McLaren that I want to like. I don’t know if I call myself “emergent,” but there is certainly a lot about the movement I agree with. I recall an “open letter” that he wrote to Chuck Colson that had much to recommend it, and I very much would have liked to see Colson respond (he wasn’t expected to, and I never learned that he, in fact, did). However, I do have a bit of a problem with “provocation” for it’s own sake, and a couple of McLaren’s comments have struck me as unnecessary or excessive.
Also, I find that a lot of people respond to criticism of criticism (is that a term?) by saying something along the line of “you’re just upset because it’s true,” or something along that line (DeVine seems to be responding to this, in part, as well), and that’s just not fair. No one saying such a thing knows the mind behind the “criticism of criticism”, and there may be reasons for the defensiveness (not the word I want, but it’s all I have for now) that are legitimate (perhaps the “caricature” or “straw man” elements referenced earlier).
Anyway, I want to like McLaren, but sometimes he makes it hard to trust him.
P.S. I write as a left-leaning person with some conservative bits I still find valuable. I’m just trying to be fair.

Not terribly relevant, but I just found out that Colson did respond to that open letter: here it is. I’m still reading it myself, but wanted to let folks now that I’m now aware of it.

Henry (comment # 29),
You write that “Practice is not the proof but makes the revelation more effective.” I think Paul would disagree with you. Check out 1 Corinthians 4:16-17 “Therefore I urge you to *imitate me*. For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of *my way of life* in Christ Jesus, WHICH AGREES WITH WHAT I TEACH everywhere in every church.” Apparently Paul thought doctrine agreed with conduct, not conduct with doctrine.

John Frye & Henry
Could it be that doctrine and practice are mutually inclusive?

Scot,
I haven’t read through all the comments, but I can say your article is right on. When I heard Brian speak and later interviewed him, I was struck by how gentle and generous he is.
I appreciate that he is raising questions. How can the church be reformed and always reforming, if we don’t let people question?
Grace and peace,
Stan

A few have commented that Brian McLaren has said some uncharitable things, has at times been overly provocative, or the like — and he who is without sin, let him throw the first stone.
No one is saying he’s perfect; he’s not.
I know I do my best to be reasonable and listen carefully and not get combative, but I fail and sometimes I’m embarrassed for tossing a barb into a mix that I wish I hadn’t.
I suspect you’ve done the same — and I’m speaking to each of us.

Scot,
So, you confess that you are a little barbaric at times.
Seeing that everyone here has survived the last number of years of politics, taking a few shots from you should be a piece of cake.
I believe there’s enough love flowing on this sight that an occasional barb can be appropriately covered. So, keep up the good work!

Scot,
Just today I got caught with my tongue wagging a bit too harshly, at least as far as I was concerned. Not easy when you’re talking on something you care passionately about. In this case our need to care for the poor, which was being questioned as short-sighted when all that matters is eternity and the soul. How I wish we could get our heads and hearts together, and reason more as we look at Scripture. And agree, that none of us has got it completely right!

My concern is not so much that McLaren has “said some uncharitable things” (though he has), but that his reductionistic caricature of evangelicals is on a par with D.A. Carson’s reductionistic caricature of the emerging movement and that the provocateur posture used as an excuse is not loving. I applaud your straight talk, pull no punches, critique of Carson at Westminster Scott. I am saying that McLaren’s commitment to “being accurate” when it comes to evangelicals is running neck and neck with Carson’s re: the emerging movement. I am working hard within my own denomination to expose Carson’s distortion of the movement that you love and that I am intrigued by and attracted to in many ways. I hope McLaren’s distortions of the movement and denomination that I love will also be exposed and corrected. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. And itâ??s more loving and communal.

I resonate with Martin Downes (#12) and Mark DeVine (#33). I’ve found McLaren to be not only provocative, but downright passive-agressive at times (e.g., his swipe at D.A. Carson on the cover of Gibbs and Bolger’s book). Additionally, the caricature element RJS mentioned (#34) factors greatly into my perspective on Mr. McLaren. As a Reformed Evangelical foundationalist, I did not feel like McLaren was even close to being fair.

Amen to Mark (#43)!

I think DeVine makes a good point. If caricature is bad, then it’s bad for everyone. Emerging straw men and Evangelical straw men should both be banned from the conversation.

Martin #27
“Presumably the apostles decided and 1 Cor. 15 is what they passed on.”
I agree. As Paul said in another place: “Having therefore obtained the help that is from God, I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would happen, how the Christ must suffer, and how, by the resurrection of the dead, he would be first to proclaim light both to these people and to the Gentiles.” (Acts 26:22-23)
On Paul’s testimony, he (they) preached NOTHING but what the prophets and Moses did say should come… the crucifixion and resurrection is ALL.
Where, then, are the doctrines of the “Trinity”, the “Miraculous Incarnation” and the various ‘divinity’ teachings?

As an evangelical, a preacher, and a born again Christian Brian seems to me to be what Jesus would have him to be, nothin’ more, nothing less; and it’s there that I sense many of our self identified brethren (although if my life was in the balance I’d not call upon them, so, who are they tryin’ to fool, huh?)having a little hang out with Brian, he’s for real. Folks might need to get a grip on occasion and realize, God really ain’ impressed with us and our theological stuff…He’s just not…like Will Smith say’s to his dog in “Independence Day”, “wanna impress me, get a job, that’ll impress me…” some folks need to write a nationally published series of books, have guts enough to tell it like they see it, pray it, and experirence it, then, after they have sold several millions of them to the masses, then, and only then, in my humble opinion, would they have earned the right to peer into Brian’s work as if though they understood where he is coming from. Not tryin’ to make anybody thumb suck- I just get a tad sick of all the really unmerited criticism of this Christian by folks who largely haven’t read what he has written…but my goodness…it’s good stuff!

As a European (so please forgive my ignorance) who read some of Brians books I felt his representation of American evangelicalism was always very charitable. If you want to see the real caricatures, take a look at our media. Even though they are guilty of “reduction”, their description of events and what they quote is accurate.
So even if some of Brians critique hurts some people’s feelings and seems to use problematic generalizations, he is helping to correct an otherwise devastating image of US Protestantism in the world. It may be harder to see that from within. But don’t stone your prophets at this critical moment.

Peter (#49): I’ve read your media. I’ve been interviewed by the BBC when they were at our church doing a piece on the creation evoltion debate in Ohio. Their portrayal and description of events is not accurate. Quotes are taken out of context. Typical media hacks.
I would sugget you come live in our communities and you will find something much different, something far more robust than McLaren or your media describes. You may not agree with some of our politics, but we can talk about that. But, reducing all evangelicals to Dobson-Falwell-Robertson is as shallow as reducing all emergents to McLaren or Burke. But, from my perspective, the person wielding the broadest brush is McLaren.
While McLaren’s critique of some aspects of evangelicalism is correct, his use, as noted above, of the straw man is highly pejorative and his passive aggressive act is tiresome. He just doesn’t have credibility with me anymore.

JohnH,
I’m not sure it is fair to this conversation to raise issues that are personal and local that no one else knows about.

I’ve only read GO of his books and found parts of if very stimulating and challenging. He came across as a really nice guy. I like the idea of the title. However, I found the introductory part really difficult to read because it was so cloying. I also found it very frustrating – he poses some good questions but then offers no real or helpful response (but maybe that’s because I’m too modern!).
But my major problem is where he leads. I say this cautiously because it has been a while since I read the book. I think what he says in GO leads to legalism. He might not be there himself but IMO his writing leads to a denial of the need for grace and a call for people to niceness. Ultimately your goodness will make you right. Jesus is reduced to a moral teacher. Like I said he might not believe that himself but for me he is a legalist, albeit with a nice smile.

Hi Scot and Emma,
I took some pictures of the statue that Brian talks about in GO. You can take a look at them here.
Damon

Codex: Biblical Studies Blogspot » Blog Archive » Musings on A Generous Orthodoxy

[...] I recognize that McLaren has received quite a bit of flack for his views and that many consider the “emergent” movement suspect (for a kind response to critics of McLaren, see Scot McKnight’s post here). I am sympathetic to many of the themes and impluses expressed by McLaren and other authors associated with the emergent movement (if you can really call it a “movement”). I imagine much of my sympathy was fostered in the many theology courses I took with Stan Grenz at Regent College/Carey Theological Seminary. It was from Stan’s book Renewing the Center (Baker Academic, 2000; Buy from Amazon.ca | Buy from Amazon.com) that McLaren was first introduced to the term “generous orthodoxy” (Stan in turn got the language from Hans Frei). That being said, there are some aspects of McLaren’s work that as a biblical scholar/theologian I have some issues with (as McLaren himself anticipates!). [...]

Scot,
Was reading this post a few minutes ago (rather behind this week) and caught what you said in a comment,
“Will we ever learn that character and life cannot be divorced from what we believe, but that they actually reveal what we truly believe? I canâ??t tell you the number of times Iâ??ve participated in discussions when I thought â?? maybe the person won, but Iâ??d not want to be like them; or maybe I won, but â??whoâ? was revealed?”
That is so very important! What I say I believe may be one thing but what I truly believe will be revealed in my character, my attitude, and in my words.
I once heard an old preacher say, “Jesus never made anybody mean.” If that is true, and I think it is, and if my character reveals my real beliefs– that ought to alarm me.

McLaren: A Provocateur « re-dreaming the dream

On McLaren and the Emergent Church…
Scot McKnight, of Jesus Creed, has posted the following letter to Emma, who had questions about Brian McLaren and the emergent church (as it pertains to McLaren’s writing). It is a very thoughtful letter and gives me a little more background on…—–
[...] Read the whole article here.   [...]

Scot,
Well I see it didn’t take long for one of watch dog blogs to slam your post by saying “So we are to not judge Brian McClaren by what he, says and writes; only by what he does.”
Do such groups even bother to actually read what someone writes? Or do their presuppositions get in the way?
I have throughly enjoyed McClaren’s books. Yes, he says some things that cause “bells, whistles, and alarms” to go off but, in the end, I find such statements lead to some great discussions and no small amount of reflection. I certainly don’t agree with all that he says, but I think his writings should be widely read and discussed.
The Evangelical Church is one sick puppy and she is in need of a course correction. Perhaps Brian is just asking us to Stop. Look. Re-evaluate. Think though what we are doing and where we are headed. Look again at the Scripture. What is it we really believe?
Brian McClaren helped me to see that (even as a pastor) it is OK to ask questions. It is OK to rethink what you “say” you believe.

It’s wonderful to ask questions, but what Brian MacLaren does in everything I’ve read from him, on his website and in his books, is to signify that Chirstianity today is all wrong and he’s got the answer. He seems to disagree that the Word of God is authoritative, and doesn’t seem to believe that Christ’s sacrifice was enough to save us.
Questions are good, but I know that there is a way to ask questions which brings you the desired result, and that’s what I see when I read his words. His questions are quite directed.
It’s possible to know with certainty what God has revealed in His Word, and yet he, among other Emergent followers, regularly refuse to take a stand on even the most clear doctrines.
Danger, danger!

Evangelutionist » Blog Archive » Scot McKnight on Brian McLaren

[...] Scott’s post “Letter to an Emerging Christian” at Jesus Creed is well worth a visit. Getting a handle on Brian McLaren can be tricky. He’s easily misread and misunderstood, but McKnight describes McLaren as I’ve come to know him: as a provocateur, a reformer outside the perimeter of systematic theology, and a conversationalist – a promoter of a more gentle and benevolent discourse inside the walls of modern Christendom: [...]