If so, please come forward...
Brian McLaren is without doubt the unprecedented leader and poster-child of the Emergent Church/Emerging Church ecumenical postmodern movement within evangelicalism today. He and his minions have challenged two thousand years of orthodox biblical Christianity on its most essential doctrines (the veracity and authority of Scripture; justification by faith alone; imputation of the righteousness of Christ; penal substitutionary atonement; the omniscience of God, Hell-eternal punishment, etc.) with his own hybrid postdmodern version; and is winning ground among some evangelicals with his heretical and aberrant beliefs.
In light of this, I would humbly submit the following question that no one in the entire EC ecumenical movement has ever addressed: Why hasn't anyone within the EC ecumenical movement (including conservatives like Mark Driscoll and Dan Kimball) publicly called for the church discipline (Matt. 18:15-20) of Brian McLaren for his aberrant and heretical theological error?
Conservatives and liberals alike (orthodox and heterodox) within the EC still participate in the same EC conferences together, share book endorsements, forums, etc., but no one has had "the ecclesiasticals" to stand up in any EC gathering and publicly decry McLaren as a heretic and call for church discipline so that he could be brought, by God's grace, to repentance for his erroneous teaching and skewed doctrinal convictions. And as you can imagine, "they" do this all under the banner of "well I believe I can make a difference if I go and share with people in those same venues the other side of the story and try to present a more accurate message. I think it would come off as unloving and insensitive if I actually said something publicly. Besides, what would happen to my standing within the A29 Network, the Emergent Community and my book sales if I actually did this?" But that kind of pusillanimous reasoning just won't fly ladies and gentlemen.
As the Apostle Paul warns, "Those elders who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning. I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality" (1 Tim. 5:20-21).
Let the "conversation" begin...
Friday, July 28, 2006
Are There Any Men of God in the EC Movement Who Stand for Biblical Truth and Are Willing to Confront Error Head On?
129 iron sharpens iron:
Hey Steve,
I think you hit the right note..... the book sales....
2 Peter 2:They will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, and will bring swift destruction on themselves.
2 Many will follow their unrestrained ways, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed.
3 In their greed they will exploit you with deceptive words. Their condemnation, [pronounced]long ago, is not idle, and their destruction does not sleep.
few are publically rebuking him because they either completely or for the most part agree with him.
and if they disagree with any of his ideas, they im sure they feel free to offer criticism privately and publically.
my assumption is that the issues of disagreement within the EC are too minor to focus on and doing so would disrupt what God is doing.
i have read some public criticism of his writings from EC folks, and thats a good thing. thats why its called a "conversation", because we realize that working together we will get closer to what God wants this to look like.
if you want an EC leader to come on your blog and condemn him the way you all do, then im sorry that will not happen.
he is not the official "spokesperson" for the EC anyway, because it is diverse theologically.
Steve - I'm not an EC guy for several reasons but frankly I see more error in what you and Gilley have written about them than anything I have read from McLaren. It may be possible that the confrontation you are looking for isn't happening because there just isn't a problem. Or more probable, the issues are minor and are being handled "internally".
I wish I could debate this more with you but you seem to have more time than I do for these things.
I originally started reading your blog because of some great Bible exposition stuff and so I only chose to comment here to encourage you to get off the EC rant and back to promoting the Word of God.
Hopefully you will do that - it's a strength for you. Railing against these guys is not.
>Hopefully you will do that - it's a strength for you. Railing against these guys is not.<
There is no doubt that Steve brings down the hamner and at times I have disagreed in other areas with him. I do believe we should be careful. But the problem today is...where are the voices to contend with this clear problem. Stunning silence everywhere else. Now there is no doubt that we are to love one another. I have wrestled with all of these issues, but love is to be without dissimulation. Take Billy Graham for instance. There is no doubt in my mind that he is a man that is intimate with God. However we must understand that there is within all of us a quibbly Balaam like funnybone that seems to always lead us astray. Billy went down to Mexico once and told all the believers that Mexican pastors had worked so hard to get out of Romanism to go back to her and infiltrate and remain within that monolithic cult. He also left some Russian believers high and dry and Dr Palau has done the same thing with China. Even though these men are brothers this must be addressed. This whole manner of thinking that comes in the guise of love and humility must be challenged. People are being led astray. Now we have Brian MacLaren who has crossed the line of truly knowing whether he is a believer or not. And the problem now is that this way is projected as a way of virtue and the path Steve Camp walks is considered one of hate. It is unfortunate. I believe he is indeed under a lot of pressure and sometimes has been harsh, but the fact remains....who else speaks out? No one. Everyone else is right there to commend this direction.
The problem with church discipline in the EC is that they don't consider themselves a church or a denomination, so they don't have a mechanism for proper church discipline. They pride themselves on their diversity -- to attack someone's views as "unbiblical" would be to endanger that diversity.
The apostle Paul rebuked Peter in front of every one, when Peter was in the wrong.
(Galatians 2:14) But when I saw that they did not walk uprightly with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before all,
Why should we not do the same?
Many thanks for alerting us and exposing the theological termites that continue to come out of the contemporary woodwork with cunning and persistence.
2 Timothy 4
Camp charicaturing Driscoll "Besides, what would happen to my standing within the A29 Network, the Emergent Community and my book sales if I actually did this?"
Mark Driscoll - Acts 29 BootCamp 2005 We've got to get Him back up on His throne and preach a big Christ. . . What's at the centerpiece of your Christology? The cross. . . The issue today, the issue in theology today is the atonement. The atonement. Those of you that swim in the emerging church crowd - there's some decent stuff there - but they can't handle a Jesus who judges; they can't handle a Jesus who dies as a substitute for sin; and they can't handle a Jesus who sends people to hell. Because that's not that nice, marginalized, Galilean hippy. He would never do those kinds of things. He's not on His throne. He doesn't rule and reign. He's not holy, high, and exalted. He's not offended by sin and sinners. They do that in the name of pacifism. They do that in the name of humility. And what they will tell you is, "Well we don't like violence and we don't like power and we don't like authority. So we don't like the atonement, a bloody Jesus. We don't like the white throne judgment and we also don't like hell." But my point is this: "You are now doing violence to the Scriptures in the name of pacifism. You are doing violence to the Christian faith in the name of pacifism. You are doing violence to the truth in the name of pacifism. You are doing violence to sound doctrine in the name of pacifism." You and I, we have to have the courage to actually preach the crucifixion of Christ . . . I'm offended that I even need to write a book defending this . . . Jesus died in my place as a substitute for my sins. Theologically we call it penal substitution . . . So much of the talk today is about kingdom, and community, and culture, and mission. So little is about Christ, and repentance, and the atoning death of Jesus on the cross. We have moved from the objective work of Jesus to subjective work of ourselves. I want to tell you, if you are going to plant a flag and die on a hill, make it Jesus is my God, He died on a cross for my sins. Die on that hill . . . If you're going to die, die for something that matters. If you're going to fight, fight for something that matters. . . So they [EC pastors] get together and they say, "Well we'll get rid of the cross, we'll get rid of the bloody Jesus, we'll get rid of the violence, we'll get rid of judgment, we'll get rid of hell, we'll get rid of the exalted Christ. We'll just take the snapshots where he looks like a nice hippy hanging out with His buddies and not working a job and we'll be that kind of Christian." That's another gospel, another Jesus, another Spirit. That's not our faith. My Jesus is coming back to judge. That's what He says in John's gospel. My Jesus is coming back to make war with His enemies. My Jesus is coming back to reclaim all of creation that is in rebellion against Him. My Jesus commands all men everywhere to repent and every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. That's my Jesus. Both on the earth and under the earth. Either bend your knee today, or you'll bend it in the end. Not for salvation but for damnation. But one way or the other Jesus Christ will get His glory; He will get His honor.
Now this I'm looking forward to seeing a rebuttal against.
What is the error, Steve? I just finished reading his latest book, The Secret Message of Jesus. While I don't agree with everything he says, I certainly did not find him as heretical as you assert he is.
As I have also been the subject of a heresy charge I suggest you read my post - Bearing the Wrath of a Heresy Hunter .
Then read Applying the Four Way Test to Christian Blogging .
I think you are throwing a lot of mud at McLaren unfairly. So far I don't see much of it sticking.
Campi: I certainly agree that McLaren's beliefs are alarming and unbiblical. I started to read "A Generous Orthodoxy" but didn't finish it because I found almost nothing biblical or useful (to the Christian life, that is) in it.
However, I'm not quite sure what should happen if in fact some EC leaders called for church discipline. How would that work? What if his congregation said, "We like what Pastor McLaren is doing and we see no cause to remove him from our pulpit"? He may be shunned by some of the EC leaders, but that wouldn't change the factor that he pastors a church.
Mike:
Did you read "A Generous Orthodoxy"? Have you read his interviews lately about his "soft" view of hell? Did you read "A New Kind of Christian" where he denies the authority of God's Word? Did you read the CT article about McLaren's views on homosexuality? If not, you must.
I am concerned brother that you can read McLaren and find very little that alarms you. I'm no "heresy hunter"; just a Christian trying to guard the trust. Even other ECers like Driscoll have written publicly about McLaren erroneous beliefs.
But still the lingering question: why hasn't the EC movement in general confronted this man in his error publicly and called him to repentance? Why the erie silence from their ranks?
With the growing interest of this movement and the inroads it is making even in reformed circles, this should be a concern for all in the body of Christ.
Grace and peace,
Steve
Church discipline is a local church matter. The only people that can discipline McLaren are the members of his church. Driscoll, Kimball, or whoever else have no role in that.
As one pointed out, Driscoll and others have very clearly spoken out against this doctrine, and against McLaren, Jones, and others in this movement. Driscoll did it very publicly on the Out or Ur blog where he confronted the foolishness of McLaren's writings on homosexuality. He has done it in other places to, including the one cited above. I can't speak for Kimball. What I have read from him has not been as clear, but I haven't read or heard him as much.
You have been shown this many, many times. The question is, Why do you persist in denying it, when you have been clearly shown it?
At some point, Steve, doesn't this come close to willfull tale-bearing on your part? It seems to me that it does. And it is at least as bad as what McLaren does. As a minister of the gospel, we have a responsibility to be honest in what we say, and not try to shade the truth in a way that favors our position. When someone has clearly done what you have called for, you need to remove his name from your list of pinatas.
With respect to speaking, I think Driscoll takes the same philosophy that MacArthur does, that he will go anywhere provided there are no constraints on his message. I think that is the wrong philosohpy, and I have serious issues with it. But they are alike in that regard.
But in any case, church discipline is a matter for local churches. So far as I know, McLaren is still a member at Cedar Ridge, so perhaps some of their members can tell us why they have not disciplined him yet.
Thanks for sharing that quote from Mark Driscoll.
The Lord Jesus spoke these words to the believers in Ephesus:
"I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars; and you have persevered and have patience, and have labored for My name's sake, and have not become weary.
Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love. ...repent and do the first works.
BUT this you have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolatians, which I also hate." Rev. 2:2-6
I believe this surely can be applied to us today.
I have a fire in my belly to keep the Word of God pure. Yet I sometimes drift into more flesh than spirit at times.
That's when I need to repent, and trust the Lord will fill my heart with His love. The flesh is at war with the Spirit. I certainly need to always be on guard, HOWEVER, at the same time we surely do need to speak the truth, but it must be with a heart of love.
BUT, it's good that you hate evil deeds, Jesus said, after His rebuke, because He hates them.
Steve,
While I agree with several of the previous posts (Larry on the local church aspect, Warren, Matt Brown...), I'd like to give an additional point.
In order for someone to point to McLaren as DEFINITELY in the wrong, this "leader" would have to be DEFINITELY in the right or this "leader" would be bringing judgment on him or herself. (splinter vs beam)
I don't see any "leaders" who can stand up to the examination they are giving McLaren. What is your definition of grace, truth, life, or love?
You say you want the truth of the Bible and McLaren would say he wants the truth of the Bible. Why do we have a contradiction?
It would seem to me that we'd better determine what we mean by "truth" BEFORE we have our "fun" railing at each other. Besides, both sides have so abused "grace" it is a wonder God hasn't struck both sides. It would take months to remove all the contradictions from this comment section alone.
For example, Matthew 18 speaks about a person NOT HEARING their brother...it has nothing to do with NOT AGREEING. If the person does hear and is still in the wrong because they don't change, then God will invoke justice when the accuser gives up his attempt at invoking justice in this world...
...unless the accuser doesn't believe in a real and very big God.
Larry:
I do understand very well that church discipline is a local church matter. No question--I agree and it should occur within McLaren's own church. But as the prophet Hosea says, "like people, like priest" (Hosea 4:9) I would suspect that McLaren's church goes undisturbed about his doctrinal departure from orthodoxy.
My question went to why no one has called for this with McLaren from within the EC movement? Considering there is little emphasis on ecclesiology or church polity within the EC and that the EC is not a functional denomination with leadership to appeal to, then it seems that the call for church discipline would be left to some of their leadership. I am not suggesting that Driscoll and Kimball and others within the EC should directly do the discipline. But, it seems with the seriousness surround McLaren, that more than just a few articles disagreeing or challenging McLaren needs to be done.
In the absence of church discipline, and while I am not a proponent of "secondary separation", in this case it seems necessary. There should be some separation from McLaren by orthodox men within the EC (as rare as they might be) until he repents and to avoid the continued appearance of still embracing a man, even if indirectly, who has all but denied the faith. I quote from the prophet Hosea again, "Ephraim is joined to idols, let him alone" (Hosea 4:17) Sometimes we must walk away from someone who departs from "the once for all delivered to the saints faith."
No one is tale-bearing here brother; and can you help point to me where church discipline was asked for or even suggested by anyone in the EC for McLaren and I will kindly step aside (you basically said that this has been demonstrated before--where?).
JG Lenhart
The heretical views about McLaren are well-documented and do not need to be repeated every time a concern about him are raised (these are not mere assertions or blogging whims). Any Christian leader must come under the scrutiny of God's Word on essential doctrinal issues, especially that pertaining to the gospel (Gal. 1:6-9).
However, I must say that your cavalier notion of "...we have our fun railing at each other" is shocking and offensive. The embracement and propagation of false doctrine and a false gospel is serious my friend and shouldn't be treated lightly.
BTW, I read your piece on THEOOZE about Modernism. Some interesting and good thoughts... but some biblical clarity would be helpful.
Grace and peace,
Steve
Rick:
Thank you for your words of exhortation and I do appreciate them.
Check back in on Monday for some new material and exposition from God's Word.
Grace and peace,
Steve
Col. 1:9-14
Steve,
My particular comment about tale-bearing was addressed at your assertion that no one has had "the ecclesiasticals" to stand up in any EC gathering and publicly decry McLaren as a heretic and call for church discipline so that he could be brought, by God's grace, to repentance for his erroneous teaching and skewed doctrinal convictions. While church discipline is a local church matter, some in the EC movement such as Driscoll have stood up and called McLaren and heretic and publicly confronted him about his teachings. I think there have been many instances of that posted here which is why I wonder why you continue to suggest that no one has called McLaren to account. When you have been shown that some in the EC have, it seems that you should stop saying that no one has.
BTW, as I reread I am curious about what it means to "have the ecclesiasticals" to stand up and say something. Exactly what is an ecclesiastical. Having been a man for most of my life, I would normally expect another phrase there, and I wonder if this phrase is really that different. Perhaps I am missing something there.
Larry:
1. Ecclesiastical - DEF: the courage to honor the Scriptures in church polity.
2. I know that Driscoll has written a few articles challenging McLaren--that is not what this post is about. Many have done so, including myself.
What I am asking is why no one in the EC movement has called specifically for church discipline of McLaren over his heretical beliefs?
Disagreement with and discipline over are two different things.
3. Bringing this issue to the local church or leadership of the EC movement is legitimate inquiry considering the leadership of the EC (both conservative and liberal) still work together in conferences and such. IOW, though Driscoll might write a few articles of concern about McLaren (and is appreciated), he is still in fact part of the same movement as McLaren--there is very little distinction when you really examine the players involved.
I.E. - The Acts29 Network has members that embrace McLaren's teachings and have his books on their recommended reading list. This I think would be a concern for anyone in the EC that holds to orthodoxy on essential doctrine.
Thank you for your thoughts...
Steve
Thanks, Steve,
1. I have no issue with the definition, but I wonder how it applies here. Since biblical church polity recognizes that church discipline is a local church issue, how does one call for discipline in a church of which he is not a member?
2. See 1.
3. The EC movement is so broad that to put two people in it means virtually nothing. You and Joel Osteen are both part of the evangelical movement. But I don't blame you for him. We have to look at what people believe, not what labels people attach to them. Driscoll had an excellent article (drawing from Stetzer) about the breadth of hte EC. He shows the different "wings" of the EC in a profitable division that delineates how they are different. It is clear from that the McLaren is not the same.
In the end, I think the church discipline question is perhaps not the best issue to go after. Those outside a church can only 1) expose, and 2) refuse to cooperate with. They cannot practice church discipline, and really have no standing to call for it that I can see.
As for reading, I have read McLaren, and enjoyed some of it. I actually like his writing style, though his content is poor in many parts. Having said that, I would recommend people read McLaren for certain issues. I think he is profitable there. I am not sure that A29 is giving a blanket endorsement, but I haven't talked to anyone about it.
Thanks for the interaction.
Too many pastors/authors/teachers/speakers, even outside the ECM, are unwilling to go on record in separating from such divisive, heretical teachers. Scripture couldn't be clearer in regard to this.
Rom. 16: 17 I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18 For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people.
Sadly, many "leaders" think they are above being questioned themselves and refuse to address WHY they drool over the approval of such men/women and their deception. To put a word on it, it comes down to Pride.
Let us dare to be Daniels, never compromising the truth of God's Word or in worship of Him, even while some of the more "well-known" "conservative" leaders go astray.
Keep contending for the truth, Steve. We are accountable to God for who we associate with, minister with, approve of, teach, etc. If only these "leaders" would have such a view.
Steve,
My comment about "fun" railing at each other comes from a deep sadness I have for the people behind these discussions...that's why I put fun in quotes. (I write to you because I think you have the ability to bridge the gap.)
Just like the comments at the end of the ooze article, there are people who use fundamentalist/traditionalist tools and those who use post-modern tools. Once people realize this, these arguments are easily diagnosed and shown to be superficial. There is another level we need to go to because this isn't working.
What is the purpose of these tools?
If it is to grow, understand others, and learn (all of these are MY idea of fun) then people would have a contrastive perspective and actively look for where they were wrong.
However, it seems too many people look comparative during these discussions and get energized by arguing...
...I can only guess they consider this "fun" because it certainly doesn't lead to growth, understanding, and learning.
How have these tools worked in getting your points across to Mr. McLaren so far?
I think that, in some respects, this comes down to whether people are willing to engage McLaren on the difficult questions he asks. I don't necessarily agree with the "provocative" style he uses, but I don't know that we can condemn him for questioning things even if we are convinced we've already figured out the "orthodox" answers.
I would be much more interested if you were attacking the manner in which some questions are asked. I find McLaren's attitude to be overall one of humility and respect.
The Reformation was a "doctrinal departure" from what the church believed at the time. The result was some of the views many people hold to be orthodox today. In the same way, I think McLaren's desire is to reform the church of today. It probably shouldn't surprise us if he is villified in much the same way the Reformers were.
I think that if you could show that McLaren's questions result from a desire to pull people away from Christ, you would have more of a point. It seems to me that his writings and actions have shown that this is not the case, however.
By the way, I realize that he doesn't just simply ask questions, but what I'm implying is that his oevrall modus operandi seems to be geared more toward asking important questions than supplying all the "right" answers.
Acts 3:8-10; 2 Tim. 1:15; 2Tim. 2:16-18; 2Tim. 4:14-15; 2Tim. 3:8; Jude 11;3John 9-11; all name names of those who were opposing the gospel of Christ and endangering local churches (save for the OT examples in Jude, however they were opposing the Word of God and HIS leadership).
Twelve individuals in 6 verses.
I wonder if these men had written the same letters on a blog today, if they would have been admonished for "going public"? Would they have been told to pipe down on the "tone" or to "cut some slack" to these dividers?
Bill said: I think that if you could show that McLaren's questions result from a desire to pull people away from Christ, you would have more of a point. It seems to me that his writings and actions have shown that this is not the case, however.
I don't think "desire" has anything to do with it. I fully believe McLaren is not desiring to pull people away from Christ. But he is doing exactly that. The fact that he does not desire to do so does not change the outcome, nor absolve him of hte responsibility he has as a teacher. When a man denies or questions clear matters of hte faith, as McLaren has done, he is culpable for hte damage done, regardless of his desire.
I agree that "desire" or motives are not as important as consequences.
If some of his questions are pulling people away from Christ we should take note, but that doesn't make the questions illegitimate.
We probably disagree about some of what you think is "clear." McLaren has certainly challenged some longstanding traditional views, but this doesn't mean that we should seek to censor him or punish him for it.
My point about McLaren's attitude is that it is one of humility. He is trying to broach subjects that are unfortunately un-broachable in some corners. I thank God for the EC because it provides a safe place for people to converse about issues that some proclaim undiscuss-able.
Brian McLaren removes portions of the sacred Scriptures, and then expounds upon them.
He has his view, and it's a view of love, peace, niceness, and everybody ought to just get along, for this is what God wants.
And yet he is so difficult to nail down, and that drives me crazy.
he's definitely a "loosey goosey" kind of a guy.
I need to know the truth, and be set free.
He seems to never need to know the truth, and in fact says we can't really.
He does put Jesus Christ first. But for me, his Jesus is so weak, and comes across as almost always unable to do what He wants to do.
That's not the Jesus Christ of the sacred Scriptures.
Surely he says things that are good, but Satan comes as an angel of light.
We need to take heed. We are no match for a mastermind like Satan, as he brings his deceptions through men and women in the Church.
And he is no way a match for the Holy Bible and the Holy Spirit working through the Church.
Those are my thoughts on Brian. Though I think he's a wonderful man, I believe he is in deep trouble, and doesn't know it.
nyoz
John
You wrote: "How have these tools worked in getting your points across to Mr. McLaren so far?"
Good question. I sent Brian an article and a few emails about a year ago but with no reply. However, I have had some very good e-conversations with Dan Kimball which I enjoyed and thank the Lord for. I have sent several emails to Mark Driscoll and placed a few phone calls as well-but regrettably, have never heard back from him. I know that we are all busy, but I try to respond to all that email me. Certainly other Christian leaders--friend or foe--always gets a response from me as quick as I am able.
The purpose of these tools isn't so much to get points across to McLaren or others (even though that is part of it)--but to the greater body of Christ in dealing with these issues from a biblical worldview. And in so doing, see lives changed through the proclamation of truth and the gospel.
To the praise of the riches of the glory of His grace, we have had a few this past year come to know the Lord Jesus Christ through these discussions.
Soli Deo Gloria,
Steve
Don,
You wrote: "I need to know the truth, and be set free."
I think knowing the truth is really more about being in a relationship with Jesus Christ. I'm not saying that "head knowledge" is unimportant, but I think modernity has mixed us up about what Christianity is all about.
bill,
I agree that it's about my relationship with our Savior, however, it's essential that I love my Lord with all my MIND , as well as all my heart, and all my strength.
Jesus prayed to His Father, "Sanctify them by Your truth. Your Word is truth."
denise
The verses in Romans 16:17-18 really say it well--thank you.
donsands
As usual the voice of reason--very good.
John
Thank you for the clarification.
May we all guard our lives and doctrine closely; and pray for McLaren that he would repent from the error he has fallen prey to.
Off to church.
I have been privileged to work with Tom Ascol this week in his church. I will be preaching this morning on the subject of "Jesus Christ-The Glory and Head of the Church."
I would appreciate your prayers and I thank you for this discussion so far. As it continues may it honor the Lord and His Word.
Grace and peace,
Steve
Col. 1:9-14
steve,
the arrogance in your words is apalling. mcclaren believes his doctrine is more correct than yours but he would not say publically "i pray that steve would repent from the error he has fallen prey to." theres is a world of difference in humility between you two. you appear obsessed with bringing the EC down but you are only strenghthening it.
try persuading EC leaders with reasoned arguments done in love, not attacking them by calling for church discipline.
Nick
I am very sorry if you interpret these words as arrogance-for my intention was one of brokenness over McLaren's views, not one of pontification of him.
If you are in the EC movement I would think that his continued skewed theology would be a great concern for you too.
I am no one's Holy Spirit brother. Just a fellow Berean. I am not trying to bring anyone or anything down. I only want to honor the Lord and His Word. Except for the grace of God--there go I.
The Pauline model for this is "instruct in sound doctrine and refute those who contradict..." (Titus 1:9).
Grace and peace to you,
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7
I posted this comment back in the comments in Part II of the last three part series on the critique of the EC, and got no responce that I could see.
All I am trying to do is get an "feel" of the EC understanding of the ministry of the Holy Spirit as it builds and equips the body.
To: Any Emerging/ent/ish-types
RE: The work and Person of the Holy Spirit in relation to all this modern/postmodern stuff, the building up of the body of Christ, and obeying the Great Comission.
Dose the ministry, and Equipping power of the Holy Spirit ( from His convicting of an awakened sinner via the Preached Word to the washing and regeneration) fit the body together in such a way to a> glorify God and Enjoy Him Forever, and b> transcend most ,if not all ,of this discussion of reaching a particular generation.
Steve...
I've just now had a chance to read your post and the comments. I think you've asked a very valid, very important question:
"Why hasn't anyone within the EC ecumenical movement (including conservatives like Mark Driscoll and Dan Kimball) publicly called for the church discipline (Matt. 18:15-20) of Brian McLaren for his aberrant and heretical theological error?".
Unless I have mis-read, what I have seen is much discussion on what church discipline is, who has the authority to initiate it, why it should be done, and how arrogant you are for bringing it up. This was to be expected, of course.
However, I have yet to see an answer to your actual question. I'd like to see an answer from those in the EC themselves (who have gone on record publicly, that they believe McLaren to be heretical in his doctrine), as to why they have not publicly called for church discipline in regards to Brian McLaren.
If they believe him to be a brother in Christ, who has crossed the line into heresy, then the Biblical perscription here is in fact church discipline in his local church. This is not arrogant to say this - it's Biblical Christianity. It doesn't mean anyone wants to "take him down" (and if more believers understood what church discipline was for in the first place, they'd never even say that), it means that if in fact he is a brother, then exhorting him to repentance in these heretical views is for his benefit and restoration to a right fellowship with Christ. Calling for church discipline is first and foremost for the person's benefit, not for their downfall. (I wish more people understood this - but I think this is a symptom of a larger issue pertaining to genuine Biblical Christianity - professing believers aren't being well taught on what this is!).
So with that said, why haven't these men in the EC taken this step to see McLaren restored to a right doctrine?
Or - have they - and prefer to remain private about it?
I think it's a valid question that deserves an honest answer, rather than this insulting accusation against anyone's motives or character.
Far too much emotional reaction going on here.
My 2 cents.
SDG,
Carla
Nick said, "you appear obsessed with bringing the EC down but you are only strenghthening it. "
I thought the EC was about conversation. What sort of discussion can be had if, when someone has a question, he is accused of being obsessed?
yes i was out of line say he is obsessed with taking the EC down. and i don't know if steve has arrogant attitudes.
but what i know is that steve's language comes across to many as arrogant, distasteful, and unloving.
steve is talking about a real person, brian mcclaren. no one should be talked about in such language. steve is called to love everyone, and i don't see how this talk about brian shows any love or respect towards him.
i don't understand anyone outside of his local christian community (people who actually personally know him) has any place calling for church discipline for brian.
those who do so i think only portray (whether real or not) underlying attitudes of ambition, control, and superiority, and do not show respect of love towards the individuals there are speaking of.
if you are concerned about a church leader's theology (for their sake and the church's), there are appropriate ways of addessing it, but what i see here is way out of bounds of christ-like behavior.
Steve asks, "Are There Any Men of God in the EC Movement Who Stand for Biblical Truth and Are Willing to Confront Error Head On?" Then you name Driscoll as one who has dropped the ball on this when YOU KNOW GOOD AND WELL that he HAS confronted emerging error head on numerous times. In fact, the very first thing I ever heard about Brian McLaren was a critique of his theology presented at an Acts 29 conference at Mars Hill. In that session which was widely listened to via the church's website, Mclaren's theological error was clearly articulated and confronted from Scripture. On top of that, you are well aware of the articles at Out of Ur and Criswell Review in which Driscoll confronts general errors in emerging philosophies and McLaren on homosexuality in particular.
The truth of the matter is that Driscoll has no more and no less responsibility to confront McLaren than you, MacArthur, Piper, P. Johnson, or whatever elder in whatever church you name. Carla, has your pastor called McLaren's board of elders to request church discipline? For that matter, does McLaren even have elders to call? Unless I'm mistaken, McLaren's wing of the EC has distanced itself from spiritual authority structures, leaving them with no accountability group on which to call.
The bottom line is that Driscoll has confronted emerging error clearly and repeatedly and to insinuate otherwise is disingenous at best and slander/libel at worst.
Wendy,
Steve asked if any in the EC movement have publicly called for the church discipline (Matt. 18:15-20) of Brian McLaren.
You then respond with what Mark Driscoll has offered:
•"confronted emerging error"
•"critique of his theology"
•"Mclaren's theological error was clearly articulated and confronted from Scripture"
•"Driscoll confronts general errors in emerging philosophies and McLaren on homosexuality in particular"
This is all well and good. And I for one am glad Driscoll has done this.
Now as to Steve's question:
to your knowledge, has Mark Driscoll approached Brian McLaren's church and spoken with them in regards to any kind of church discipline for the views Mark Driscoll believes Brian McLaren to holds to?
You said "The truth of the matter is that Driscoll has no more and no less responsibility to confront McLaren than you, MacArthur, Piper, P. Johnson, or whatever elder in whatever church you name."
The question was posed to those within the EC movement ("any men of God in the EC movement who stand for Biblical truth" - not to those not a part of this movement/conversation) that on the one the hand, distance themselves from McLaren due to his departure from orthodox Christianity - and yet still have very close associations with him via conferences, book endorsements, forums, etc (as Steve pointed out in the post).
Many see a disconnect here with those within the ECM. If McLaren has departed from orthodox Christianity to the point that even many within the ECM won't claim him as theirs, so to speak, why not go all the way with the public "distancing" and critique - and go to his church to encourage church discipline. Instead of continuing to associate with him as a brother in various evangelical functions.
I don't presume to speak for Steve on this one, but this is a question that has come up many times in conversations offline, about what's happening with the ECM.
SDG...
Carla
Nick said
"but what i know is that steve's language comes across to many as arrogant, distasteful, and unloving."
"steve is talking about a real person, brian mcclaren. no one should be talked about in such language. steve is called to love everyone, and i don't see how this talk about brian shows any love or respect towards him."
Since when is telling the truth unloving?
Steve is emulating and yes defending and honoring Jesus Christ by telling the truth!
Who was the most loving person to ever walk this world?
Don't know???
READ Matthew 23:33
"You serpents, you brood of vipers, how shall you escape the sentance of hell?"
That was JESUS CHRIST speaking!
The creator and author of LOVE!
I would suggest that if we call ourselves followers of Christ, we better start caring about the things that HE cares about, like His Word, the Word of God!
Mark
Wendy:
I do know that Mark has spoken out on a few ocassions about McLaren and his words have been most appreciated. No one is denying that here.
This post goes to the issue of church discipline. There is a reason for this: the EC claims to want to recover the historic Christian faith--of which one element of church polity is church discipline; especially in regards to elders who continually sin in matters of skewed doctrine.
THAT is the emphasis here. I am not in any manner discrediting what Mark has stood for in the past in challenging McLaren. But church discipline in these kinds of matters within the EC would prove beneficial for not only its own movement, but for others, who are skeptical about its legitimacy.
Grace and peace,
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5
Steve/Carla,
I could understand someone with Presbyterian or Episcopalian ecclesiology wondering why the "denomination" had not done something about a leader in sin or theological error.
But, how does one with a Baptist/congregational ecclesiology, believing that the local church is autonomous, Biblically support a call for church discipline outside of the local congregation. Paul's rebuke of Peter is similar to what Driscoll and others have already done.
Or is there another instance where a church leader of an "independent" (autonomous, local congregation) has fallen into sin and/or theological error and those outside his church have called for discipline. For example, as far as I know, Piper has confronted Greg Boyd for his open theology at a denominational level, but has not called for church discipline by Boyd's congregation. Has Macarthur ever called for church discipline of an errant independent dispensationalist?
What are the principles and examples that show a call for church discipline is an appropriate and/or expected response?
there are many ways to tell the truth without love. you can tell the truth in love, or outside of love, depending on your attitudes (walking in the Spirit vs. in the flesh).
i know jesus had some harsh things to say, but those were supported by his clear message of personal love towards all
i don't see any message of love or respect to brian here. it all comes across attack, even if it is a sincere defense of truth.
i am wondering how talking so much about a person behind their back is even acceptable in the first place. has brian himself even been given a chance to respond to this blog?
Steve said:
The Acts29 Network has members that embrace McLaren's teachings and have his books on their recommended reading list. This I think would be a concern for anyone in the EC that holds to orthodoxy on essential doctrine.
I go to an Acts 29 church. So, since I am related to this claim, I'd like some proof. Could you give links?
luke britt:
1. Have you done an exhaustive search on the A29Net as to all of their reading lists for pastors? Go to the A29Net and review the recommended reading list of books for yourself that pastors are "required" to read. McLaren's material is in there. Proof enough.
The question is why? Why still carry his material if you disagree with what he is teaching?
2. As to the theme of my post, why wouldn't at least EC leadership communicate to all of their pastors in their A29 Network that if in fact they do not embrace McLaren's heretical views on essential doctrine: to avoid reading or recommending McLaren's material; that A29 officially does not embrace his writings or his views represented therein; and that until he repents and comes to back to orthodoxy, we will not be partnering with him in any EC conference of any kind?
This seems reasonable and above reproach. Does it to you?
3. When anyone makes strong claims against someone as Driscoll has about McLaren, but continues to participate in EC conferences with him, has his books still in their reading list, and won't publicly decry him as one who has abandoned orthodox biblical Christianity, then it is difficult to take him seriously on his claims against McLaren.
It's called politics. Say enough with conviction to appear as to distance yourself from someone or something, but don't say too much to alienate them totally from your circle of influence that could affect other areas of standing and prominence.
Prophets of the Lord, not politicians, don't jockey for positioning within a movement to protect ones standing or influence; they preach the Word of God uncompromisingly regardless of personal consequence, financial fallout, or loss of station in life and ministry, and they call men to repentance without partiality.
Grace and peace,
Steve Camp
Col. 1:9-14
That's slander, Steve. That's sin. You need to publicly repent and ask Driscoll's forgiveness for those last few paragraphs.
"they preach the Word of God uncompromisingly regardless of personal consequence, financial fallout, or loss of station in life and ministry, and they call men to repentance without partiality."
There's nothing slanderous about this. I'm all for conversation and thought, but the Word of God can't be compromised to achieve that.
I read through A Generous Orthodoxy, and it left me bewildered.
He talks around things. I am weary of many of the things Brian has said.
Is he a nice person? Yes. He's a deep thinker. A prof at Washington Bible College, who is a friend of mine, knows Brian. He says he is a delightful guy.
But his theology is very questionable.
Steve wrote an article on Brain McLaren a year or so ago, and it was very kind, but staight to the point, as Steve always is, which I appreciate.
I don't know if it's in Steve's archives, but if it is, it is worth a read.
Donsands:
Thank you for your comments. Truth is the issue here. McLaren doesn't believe that the Scriptures do not claim to be "authoritative nor foundational" for the Christian life.
When someone perverts God's Word then the dominos will fall quickly. Depart from the sound words of God's Word and we are all left to our moorings and devices.
Here is the link you requested: Reinventing Calvinism
Wendy:
I am a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ. You are a woman and a guest here on my blog. Conduct yourself as such. Do not confuse your ability to post here with the freedom to say anything you might wish too.
Guard your words.
Expressed views based upon factual actions is not slander. Attempt to answer the questions and suggestions I have posited above, engage in this discussion from a biblical worldview (you're a deacon at Mars Hill... right?), or do not post here. It's that simple.
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7
For those who are wondering about the ecumenical nature of EC and if the conservatives and liberals are not partnering together still then check this out.
Chris Seay is a pastor of an Acts 29 church plant in Houston called, Ekklesia. Surprisingly, Dan Kimball also endorsed this letter alongside McLaren and I know that Dan doesn't agree with McLaren's theology.
In the words of Motown's finest: "what's going on..."
Campi
"i am wondering how talking so much about a person behind their back is even acceptable in the first place. has brian himself even been given a chance to respond to this blog?"
This is a public forum, there's no talking behind anyone's back here, it's all out in the open for anyone to read OR comment on, including Mr. McLaren himself if he chooses to do so. Why he would, I don't know, because there seems to be a steady stream of people willing to defend him without him having to make any effort on his own.
I just love how people decry Steve's words here, then when they get emotional about the subject respond with hateful words toward Steve that are exactly the kind of words they were decrying about in the first place.
ScottyB:
As you know brother, I don't allow drive-by posting on this blog (rule #7). You may try to make your case, but you must do more than state mere hyperbole.
Your comment has been deleted until you can reveal your "inside source" (LOL.) and prove that the conclusions myself and others are making are "180 degrees off."
Come here Scott with the Word of God, come here with lucid arguments, come here with your self-aggradnized inside information, but do not come here with your covert conjecture.
You may post here again when you stop feeding the trolls and can engage from a biblical worldview about the article that this thread is about.
To remind you: why hasn't the EC leadership in general publicly guarded the truth against the aberrant and heretical teachings of McLaren? Why has there been no collective move among those even within the A29 Network to at least distance themselves from one who is clearly heterodox in his beliefs?
Grace and peace,
Steve
Col. 1:9-14
Fascinating conversation. I guess I agree with a lot of Brian's theology and practice (his life, I know personally, sings the Gospel of Jesus Christ), and where I don't, I don't consider it heresy. Or at least, its no more heretical than the rest of us.
Brother Steve, I know where you're coming from. I grew up in the PCA. I have "Reformed" roots. There are many Calvinists (yes, even conservative ones) making positive contributions to the emerging church conversation--I think you, too, could be one of them--I have discovered a little humility goes a long way.
Incidentally, if you're interested in what realizing we're all heretical looks like, I'd highly suggest Pete Rollins' new release, "How (Not) To Speak of God." (See http://www.paracletepress.com/nstore/AuthorPeterRollins.html )
Mike Morrell
zoecarnate.com
That last link didn't come through. You can get to Rollins' new book here
Here are a couple of links of interest to us all in this discussion.
Let's Take Back Our Young
Rob Bell: A Very Poor Communicator
Here is a quote from Rob Bell from this link: "I’ll read a Yoga book, and realize, ‘Hey they are searching for something here! They are trying to get this experience. Why? Well, because God wired them that way…to seek Him.’ Try reading a book on Buddhism, and see if it doesn’t bring Scriptures to life. What are Buddhists looking for? Enlightenment. Ahh, Ephesians 1–enlightenment!” (emphasis added)
Tragic.
Here is Calvary Chapel's statement on the EC Ecumenical movement. It is respectful in tone, but is devastating in its analysis of the EC. It is a very good statement and we should all be grateful for their leadership in this area. Calvary Chapel Statement on The Emerging Church
And: The Emerging Church: Another Road to Rome
Mike
Thanks for your thoughts and the link.
Campi
2 Cor. 4:5-7
Correction on the address for the Calvary Chapel Statement:
The Calvary Chapel Statement on the Emerging Church
Steve
Steve
I appeal to you as a father please consider you're words against Driscoll in the post above-did they make us think something about Driscoll that is untrue?
A question, just to make sure that I am understanding the direction of this post:
Is calling for church discipline within the EC different form calling for church discipline, (and with that, taking another look at) John Piper’s recent attempt to change the minimum requirements for membership within the church he pastors?
If memory serves, one of the issues was what kind, if any kind, of baptism was recognized by that body for membership. Some godly men found this to be an issue, contacted Bethlehem Baptist Church, and a reasonable dialogue ensued.
A point on that topic: that was “inter-denominational”. This is ( to say the very least) NOT inter-denominational in nature.
Now, I realize that I have “tried to squeeze the Emergent/ing/ish conversation-movement-church into a ‘denominational’ framework…and thus display my rampant ignorance of all relevant salient issues that contribute to the conversation.” Perhaps the example within the question will still hold water.
( If I have double-posted, my apologies)
ScottyB:
I thank you for your question and for the focus of it.
A - To the very best of my motives and ability, there was nothing untrue that was said in the post or comment section. When you have been in ministry for almost thirty years, you are exposed to many different scenarios and situations. In the end, they usually come down to two things: obedience to God and His truth; or playing politics.
By playing politics I mean: a rationalizing of one's actions to justify ones behavior to remain within the good standing of those who directly or indirectly can impact your work for the purpose of guarding your own influence, opportunity, and public name (this secondarily comes down in the end to how ones stance for the truth will effect them financially as well). We all in some measure have fallen prey to its logic-I know in past years I have too.
I recognize that here brother in this situation. I appreciate greatly Mark's words about McLaren on the few occasions that he has addressed his concerns. But to continue to carry McLaren's material as recommended reading on the A29Network; to continue to stand with him at EC conferences; to continue to participate in literature with him--even if he is representing the more biblical view is a juxtaposed position.
The EC movement is young and growing fast. I have written about what I like in the EC movement and the concerns they are addressing in evangelicalism. Men like Driscoll and Kimball from the conservative arm of that movement have a tremendous responsibility to guard the trust and provide leadership for all of their pastors associated with them.
There is biblical precedence for withdrawing from those who are teaching unsound doctrine--McLaren being the example at hand. These men need to make a clean break with him and make it public. It is a form of censure and discipline in doing so if McLaren's own church leadership will not. Withdrawing his books from their reading list is another tangible way in which to bring "discipline" to this situation.
Here is a portion of an email comment just sent to me this morning that addresses this issue: "The issue is that the Emerging church movement has no accountability and it truly appears that they are trying to avoid any accountability. If Mark Driscoll at Mars Hill does not agree with the movement then why does he promote their conference in Seattle on his own Bible colleges web-site? He is promoting false teaching! Not only that but when Calvary Chapel made this stand, it also meant Chuck Smith standing up and openly rebuking his own son for being part of this and informing other Calvary Chapels to stay away from him..."
Does your "inside source" that you won't reveal affirm or deny this? Everything we discuss here on this blog is well-documented Scott and is a matter of public record.
Here is the 64,000 question on this issue: how is the EC movement promoting and demonstrating accountability? How are they handling to the greater body of Christ public matters such as McLaren's skewed and in some cases heretical theology so that they are proving faithful as under-shepherds of Christ? Is Mark or Dan trying to protect in any manner whatsoever their standing within the EC movement that if they began a process of biblical accountability with men like McLaren that they maybe fear the fallout of such action? And if they don't fear it, why not just do it, say it and stand for the truth?
These are legitimate questions. Driscoll is not the target here brother, McLaren is. But Mark prides himself on being seen as "the orthodox one in EC circles" to the greater body of Christ and by his developed association with men like Piper, Ware, Carson, etc. That is important.
There was no slander of Mark here. Let's deal with these issues biblically.
In closing, I do find it ironic that you are more upset with me for stating the facts here, then you seemingly are with the real issues at hand. Why not the same anger directed towards McLaren? Why not the same concern for why men like Driscoll are not publicly calling McLaren to repentance and removing his books from their own network until he repents and changes them?
Grace and peace,
Steve
Col. 1:9-14
fair enough you would have an answer to some of these questions if you returned my phone calls from last month
Brian stepped down from full-time minsitry. He doesn't pastor a church anymore. Do some research people.
Rob
I often see people lambasting Steve and other critics of EC theology, with efforts to marginalize them as either cranks or off base with their concerns. There have been enough astute, learned theologians who have raised concerns over EC theology to blunt this rather weak defense. The writings and other public comments of EC acolytes are well known. We don't have to make them up. We are concerned for a reason.
As to correcting error, there is a difference between a member of a local fellowship falling into sin, and a false teacher whose writings/teachings are widely disseminated. When the local fellowship refuses to call their errant teacher into account, it falls on the church at large to deal with it. Publically disseminated error must be corrected publically, and Matthew 18 DOES NOT APPLY!
Rob
We all know that McLaren stepped down several months ago from the senior pastorship of his church. That is not the issue here. His heretical theology is... BTW, he was a pastor when writing most of the early books on Emergent "lack-of-doctrine."
ScottyB:
So does this mean you are not going to share with all of us answers to those questions?
Try calling again--it's what I would do.
solameanie:
A good word. Matthew 18 applies in part; but that coupled with 1 Tim. 5:20-21 and Romans 16:17-18 makes accountability to sound doctrine unavoidable.
A few key verses would also be 1 Tim. 1:19-20; 2 Tim. 2:16-18.
Thanks again for your thoughts here,
Steve
2 Cor. 3:5
hello... hello?
Is this thing on?
Steve:
In regards the Seattle event that MacLaren is participating in, it is being hosted by Mars Hill Graduate School, not Mars Hill Church. The two organizations are unrelated. Mars Hill Church, with which Mark Driscoll is associated, is not endorsing the event.
The individual who e-mailed you seemed quite upset about this, might you reply to their message and pass on this information for the sake of clarity and truth? I would hate for them to think poorly of a group of Christians based on misinformation and confusion over extremely similiar names.
PS-I know you don't allow anonymous comments, I've included my full name and e-mail, but I do not have, nor have any desire to have, my own Blog. Blogger won't let me register unless I start one up.
Thanks.
could you please spell out precisely what heresies mclaren espouses, complete with references from his writing? could you also provide biblical counterpoints to these supposed heresies?
it's easy to accuse, but it's quite a different creature to build a solid case. i'd like to see a solid case built against mclaren.
He and his minions have challenged two thousand years of orthodox biblical Christianity on its most essential doctrines (the veracity and authority of Scripture; justification by faith alone; imputation of the righteousness of Christ; penal substitutionary atonement; the omniscience of God, Hell-eternal punishment, etc.)- Mr. Camp
O.k., this is an irresponsible statement. It is not true. Justification by faith alone . . and imputation of righteousness are not 2000 year old doctrines of the faith.
What is true and older than 2000 years? . . . Critique from within!
Question: Do you consider Dispensationalism a heresy? I have met very few Calvinist who don't. Should Dispensationalist face discipline? How about the Left Behind movement - they are good Gnostics - should they face discipline? Maybe Larry Crabb should face discipline; he supposedly mixes psychology with faith. Maybe we should discipline Calvin . . . he was a murder. No . . . but we should excommunicate Luther – he was an anti-Semite. No, I got it. Let’s remove Paul and John because they mixed Greek and Hellenistic philosophy with Faith. How about excommunicating Zondervan Publishing, they certainly publish heresy..
( Ok...now I think my profile is all filled out.)
A question, just to make sure that I am understanding the direction of this post:
Is calling for church discipline within the EC different form calling for church discipline, (and with that, taking another look at) John Piper’s recent attempt to change the minimum requirements for membership within the church he pastors?
If memory serves, one of the issues was what kind, if any kind, of baptism was recognized by that body for membership. Some godly men found this to be an issue, contacted Bethlehem Baptist Church, and a reasonable dialogue ensued.
A point on that topic: that was “inter-denominational”. This is ( to say the very least) NOT inter-denominational in nature.
Now, I realize that I have “tried to squeeze the Emergent/ing/ish conversation-movement-church into a ‘denominational’ framework…and thus display my rampant ignorance of all relevant salient issues that contribute to the conversation.” Perhaps the example within the question will still hold water.
( If I have double-posted, my apologies)