I want to be fair with McLaren. I want to understand his ideas and evaluate them based on their merits. If I misunderstand a point or misconstrue what McLaren teaches I want to be corrected. Further, I have no desire to engage in ad hominem attacks. I want to discuss McLaren’s theology without vitriol or sophomoric putdowns. I will not assume the worst about Brian McLaren. I will try not to say anything in the cozy confines of the blogosphere that I would not say sitting across from McLaren over a beverage of his choice.
It’s not wrong to ask a reviewer to be charitable, so long as the love does not have to be devoid of the truth.
So what I will not do is pretend that the issues McLaren raises are non-essential issues or that his mistakes are little mistakes. I will not refrain from serious critique because this is only a “quest” or merely an attempt to raise questions. Moreover, I will not attempt to find a middle ground with teaching that I believe to be heterodox. I will not look for a third way when I see Christianity going down one path and McLarenism going down another. I will state my disagreements with this book strongly and warn other Christians strenuously. I am not ashamed for having convictions, and I am not afraid to write as if I understand (truly though not exhaustively) what the Bible teaches and understand that what it teaches is incompatible with A New Kind of Christianity.
No one deserves to reviled. But some books deserve to pilloried.
and then he promptly and calmly proceeds to pillory what needs to be pilloried.
It wasn’t too long ago that I wrote about Brian McLaren and got in trouble. Reflecting on seeing him speak at a nearby church, I suggested that he appears to love Jesus but hate God. Based on immediate and furious reaction, I quickly retracted that statement. I should not have done so. I believed it then and I believe it now. And if it was true then, how much more true is it upon the release of his latest tome A New Kind of Christianity. In this book we finally see where McLaren’s journey has taken him; it has taken him into outright, rank, unapologetic apostasy. He hates God. Period.
Both of these men have done us a service. Books such as McClaren’s need to be deconstructed and called out for the heresy that they are. As Mark Driscoll says, we have a duty to shoot the wolves.
The Christian churches in the United States are in trouble for all the usual reasons — human sinfulness and selfishness, the temptations of life in an affluent society, doctrinal and moral controversies and uncertainties and on and on and on — but also and to a surprisingly large degree they are in trouble because they are trying to address the problems of the twenty first century with a business model and a set of tools that date from the middle of the twentieth. The mainline churches in particular are organized like General Motors was organized in the 1950s: they have cost structures and operating procedures that simply don’t work today. They are organized around what I’ve been calling the blue social model, built by rules that don’t work anymore, and oriented to a set of ideas that are well past their sell-by date.
Without even questioning it, most churchgoers assume that a successful church has its own building and a full-time staff including one or more professionally trained leaders (ordained or not depending on the denomination). Perhaps no more than half of all congregations across the country can afford this at all; most manage only by neglecting maintenance on their buildings or otherwise by cutting corners. And even when they manage to make the payroll and keep the roof in repair, congregations spend most of their energy just keeping the show going from year to year. The life of the community centers around the attempt to maintain a model of congregational life that doesn’t work, can’t work, won’t work no matter how hard they try. People who don’t like futile tasks have a tendency to wander off and do other things and little by little the life and vitality (and the rising generations) drift away.
As I like to put it, there is too much time and effort required to simply “feed the beast.” How do we create a structure that can accommodate growth by massive multiplication? Bigger structures can’t be the answer or any part of the answer.
I wasn’t able to go to Verge 2010 last week, but I watched quite a bit of the streaming video. It was some amazing stuff. Many of the thoughts and beliefs with which I have been struggling for the last seven years were echoed from the stage. just amazing.
In particular, two things that I heard have been rattling around my brain all week.
The first was in a breakout session on church structure. the question is whether we are structured for addition or multiplication? we say that we want and expect growth by multiplication, but our structures can’t accommodate anything other than addition. Think about it. If 100 people came to Christ this week in your church, then it would be an exceptionally great week that would be remembered for a long time, but nothing would really have to change. But if 1000 came, then we would have a problem. We might have to add another service more child care more parking etc. If 3000 or 5000 came, then we would be completely overwhelmed.
Our structures cannot accommodate the growth that occurred on the day of Pentecost when Peter preached or the the growth that occurred after the healing of the lame man from the Beautiful Gate.
The second thing was a throwaway comment by Hugh Halter. He mentioned Acts 8:1 and the fact that Luke was probably having a little joke when he wrote it. It says that the believers were scattered because of persecution, “except the apostles.” the word apostolos means “messengers, sent ones”. Thus it says the believers were scattered except the sent ones.
I have been thinking about us. We have been sent and yet we continue to stand congregated together. Makes me wonder how long God will forestall persecution so that we get “scattered”. Why can’t we self scatter?
“Cool! Your church has funerals,” a friend recently said after I told him about attending one for a fellow parishioner at my church.
My friend attends one of those churches that meet in a Cineplex. Ever since he first told me about his theater church, I had wondered about the logistics of baptisms, weddings, and funerals.
It turns out that the entire membership of his congregation ranges in age from late teens to late 20s. Baptisms are rare and handled at other venues. As far as he knows, they’ve never had a funeral. And when people get married, they rent out traditional churches for the occasion.
Chandler is trying to suffer well. He would never ask for such a trial, but in some ways he welcomes this cancer. He says he feels grateful that God has counted him worthy to endure it. He has always preached that God will bring both joy and suffering but is only recently learning to experience the latter.
Since all this began on Thanksgiving morning, Chandler says he has asked “Why me?” just once, in a moment of weakness.
He is praying that God will heal him. He wants to grow old, to walk his two daughters down the aisle and see his son become a better athlete than he ever was.
Whatever happens, he says, is God’s will, and God has his reasons. For Chandler, that does not mean waiting for his fate. It means fighting for his life.
Aaron and his wife Jamie embarked on the adoption of brother and sister Amos and Story from Haiti about two years ago. late last year, the paperwork was completed and Story made it home to Austin. Amos remains in Haiti waiting for the last stage of paperwork to be completed. He and the rest of the children in his orphanage survived the earthquake, but have been living outside for almost a week now. Pray for them to find a new place to stay and to have plenty of food and water supplied. Pray also for a miracle to allow Amos to get home soon.
This song and video is specifically about Aaron’s struggle to complete the process and get his children home. But do you see any metaphors here?
Now, says David Kinnaman, president of the Barna research group, many Christians are expressing “disappointment that the congregational models have become so consumeristic.” “House church”—also called home church, simple church, or organic church—is “the new expression of hippie Christianity,” says Kinnaman. If the megachurch is Budweiser, the house church is a microbrew.
But as with microbrewers, church-goers endlessly dispute the ingredients that make up an authentic house church.
give it a look see and tell me what you think. In your experience is this phenomenon caused by a “mistrust [of] authority and institutional hierarchy”?
One day I ventured to ask him how he had become possessed of the experience, when he replied, “By reading the epistle to the Ephesians.” I was surprised, for I had read it without such results, and therefore asked him to explain the manner of his reading, when he related the following: He had gone into the country to spend the Sabbath with his family on one occasion, taking with him a pocket copy of Ephesians, and in the afternoon, going out into the woods and lying down under a tree, he began to read it; he read it through at a single reading, and finding his interest aroused, read it through again in the same way, and, his interest increasing, again and again. I think he added that he read it some twelve or fifteen times, “and when I arose to go into the house,” said he, “I was in possession of Ephesians, or better yet, it was in possession of me, and I had been ‘lifted up to sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus‚’ in an experimental sense in which that had not been true in me before, and will never cease to be true in me again.”
here is the beginning of a fascinating disquisition.
The Bible offers few clues: Celebrations of Jesus’ Nativity are not mentioned in the Gospels or Acts; the date is not given, not even the time of year. The biblical reference to shepherds tending their flocks at night when they hear the news of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:8) might suggest the spring lambing season; in the cold month of December, on the other hand, sheep might well have been corralled. Yet most scholars would urge caution about extracting such a precise but incidental detail from a narrative whose focus is theological rather than calendrical.
He has been doing a series showing God’s sovereignty in everything and especially in salvation in each non-Pauline epistle of the New Testament in order to show that this doctrine is not something that only Paul writes about. Interesting stuff.
I would also recommend three posts of his for those of you struggling with the sovereignty of God in salvation.
So why? Why did I get so upset? Why is the idea of a God who chooses certain people over others so offensive, when the Bible we read every day is crammed full of situation where God does just that? How did I go 6 years, knowing this God, yet never truly understanding how the Bible clearly says He interacts with man?
One thing any Bible believing Christian must agree on is that some people go to Hell when they die. God’s just wrath against some sinners is not forgiven, and they take the wrath themselves. If Jesus died so that people could be saved, and God is powerful enough to do whatever He wants, why doesn’t He make everyone go to Heaven? Do people go to Hell because they just didn’t make the right decision?
Moreover, the New Calvinism displays considerable diversity. African-American rapper Curtis “Voice” Allen is known for his distinctively Calvinist lyrics (“I been exposed to bright lights, the doctrines of grace, I’m elected, imputed perfected . . . Cuz nothing can stop his plan, and as far as the east is from the west more than time zones, man”). The New Calvinists admire not only white Puritans but “black Puritan” voices like Lemuel Haynes and Anthony Carter, who gives an African-American take on the themes of the New Calvinism in On Being Black and Reformed.
and here is the third of Kevin’s responses to the article.
3. Not kingdom enough. Billings would like to see the New Calvinist think big, embrace the cultural mandate, and be salt and light in all areas of society. This one is tricky, because the neo-reformed movement is simply not agreed as to how important this emphasis should be. Some would applaud Billings’ point about cultural transformation. Some would be wary of it. Others would say, “sounds good, but that’s the role of individual Christians, not the church as church.” Be a salt and light? Absolutely. Be neo-Kuyperian? Depends on who you ask.
check them both out. good stuff with which to finish the weekend.
here are a couple of bits from his article, but go read the whole thing.
[In starting Cornerstone Church] I simply followed what other churches in America had done. I didn’t even think twice about it. But as I look back, I’m amazed that I didn’t consult the Scriptures as my primary resource. Had I done so, “church” probably would have looked different.
If I had consulted the Bible first, I probably would have created a gathering that emphasized loving one another. Instead, I spent years running a service that left little room for love. It quickly became the most popular service in town. It was “successful.” The problem is, we defined success as a lot of people coming, enjoying the service, and receiving some sort of benefit. Our motives seemed pure, and good things were happening, so we didn’t question much.
REDEFINING SUCCESS
How would we define success if the Bible were the only standard by which we judged our church? If you had no theological training or previous church experience—if you did nothing but read through the Bible fifty times—what would you consider to be essential for a gathering of believers? How would you measure the success of a church?
…….
We have trouble building our churches exegetically, however, because we are surrounded by so many influences, and each of these beg us to think subjectively. My thinking is constantly affected by my Asian culture, my American culture, my Southern Californian culture, my evangelical church culture, and a host of other factors. Then I have my own flesh that begs me to believe what I desire to be true. There is so much in this world that would keep us from simply listening to the voice of God.
When I began to realize this, I prayed that God would allow me to ignore the prodding of my culture, my lifestyle, and my flesh as I searched the Scriptures for an exegetical model of church. I have listed some of my conclusions below.
on a somewhat related note, yesterday at Austin Stone, Matt reminded the church about its vision to be a church “for the City.”
We are seeking to live out the same desire as Francis Chan to do church biblically instead of culturally.
Matt Chandler’s surgery to remove a mass from his frontal lobe begins in about 20 minutes. Be in prayer for him during the surgery and for a complete recovery.
Here is a post from Matt going into surgery about the things for which he is thankful.
The beginning:
The last seven days have been some of the most interesting of my life. I have felt anxiety, fear, sadness and a deep and unmovable joy simultaneously and in deeper ways than I have felt before. I am grateful for this heightened sense of things. Today at 10:45 a.m. CST I will have a good portion of my right frontal lobe removed. I head into that surgery with a heart that is filled with gratitude and hope.
Here are some of the things I am thankful for in no particular order:
I am thankful for the thousands of you who have prayed and fasted for my health. It has brought far more tears to Lauren’s and my eyes to receive this kind of attention from the Church universal than this tumor has.
I’m thankful for health insurance because I’m guessing they aren’t doing my five-hour surgery for free!
So where do I stand on The Manhattan Declaration? Well, I wish I would have listened to my initial hesitation about signing these sorts of documents. The Declaration does not need my signature to make it significant and I don’t need people to misunderstand what my support means. But having signed it (only as one of the crowd), I still agree with the Declaration and feel no pang of conscience for supporting it. If it comes out that the Declaration was meant to minimize the deepest divisions between Evangelicals and Catholics, then I will regret my support. But as it stands, I agree with Mohler’s reasons for signing the document and share his understanding of what signing does and does not mean
Timmy Brister posted an extended discourse yesterday on cooperation between Calvinists and Arminians that is well worth your time.
This morning, Timmy’s senior pastor, Tom Ascol, followed up with a quote from Charles Simeon that is too good not to repeat. Charles Simeon is talking about himself as a young calvinist minister meeting the elderly arminian, John Wesley.
A young Minister, about three or four years after he was ordained, had an opportunity of conversing familiarly with the great and venerable leader of the Arminians in this kingdom; and, wishing to improve the occasion to the uttermost, he addressed him nearly in the following words: “Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions, not from impertinent curiosity, but for real instruction.” Permission being very readily and kindly granted, the young Minister proceeded to ask, “Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved, that you would never have thought of turning unto God, if God had not first put [it] into your heart?”–“Yes,” says the veteran, “I do indeed.”–“And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by any thing that you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?”–“Yes, solely through Christ.”–“But, Sir, supposing you were first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?”–“No; I must be saved by Christ from first to last.”–“Allowing then that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?”–“No.”–“What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother’s arms?”–“Yes; altogether.”–“And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto his heavenly kingdom?”–“Yes; I have no hope, but in him.”–“Then, Sir, with your leave, I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is, in substance, all that I hold, and as I hold it: and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree.”
The Arminian leader was so pleased with the conversation, that he made particular mention of it in his journals; notwithstanding there never afterwards was any connexion between the parties, he retained an unfeigned regard for his young inquirer to the hour of his death.
(Charles Simeon, Expository Outlines on the Whole Bible, Vol. 1: Genesis-Leviticus Preface, pp. xvii-xviii)
Kevin says the book is: “a short, pungent, provocative book.”
The thesis is simple and controversial: aid is the problem, not the solution. “In the past fifty years,” she writes, “over US$1 trillion in development-related aid has been transferred from rich countries to Africa. In the past decade alone, on the back of Live 8, Make Poverty History, the Millennium Development Goals, the Millennium Challenge Account, the Africa Commission, and the 2005 G7 meeting (to name a few), millions of dollars each year have been raised in rich countries to support charities working for Africa.” Sounds good, right? But has the more than one trillion dollars in assistance made Africa made people better off? Moyo says “no.” In fact, she argues that aid has helped make the poor poorer and growth slower. “The notion that aid can alleviate systemic poverty, and has done so, is a myth…Aid has been, and continues to be, an unmitigated political, economic, and humanitarian disaster for most parts of the developing world” (xix).
Go read the rest of Kevin’s post for his complete review of the book including the problems caused by foreign aid and some possible solutions. Good intentions aren’t enough. As good stewards, Christians should insist on good results of the aid our churches give.
Q: What can the church expect to gain from all the changes?
A: The transformation of our campus will dramatically increase First Baptist’s ability to minister to our city. It will make room for hundreds or even thousands more worshipers and Sunday School attendees and will vastly increase our capacity for weekday groups. The worship center in particular will also be an iconic presence in the city, standing boldly as a continuation of our legacy in downtown Dallas.
Q: What are the distinctive intent and features of the new campus design?
A: The design is filled with messages about our church. The glass, the water, the light and the spaciousness of the plan speak of openness, transparency and spiritual refreshment. In a way, the glass walls have an evangelistic effect: people walking by have a view in from the street and feel drawn in. The glass also unifies the architecture of the church by extending the aesthetic started by the Criswell Center, which was built in 2006, and thus capitalizes on our $50 million investment in that multi-purpose facility. As for long-term cost, modern technologies allow vast use of glass with surprising energy efficiency.
emphasis added.
just an unbelievably huge demonstration of the attractional church mentality. They are saying that we will minister to our city by making room for hundreds or even thousands more to assemble here in an even bigger [glass-walled] room. Isn’t there a better and more direct way to “minister to the city”?
Convicted by the verse to “love your neighbor as yourself,” Chan showed up at the next board meeting with an agenda. In the early years, Cornerstone gave away 4 percent of its budget. Chan asked them to give away 50 percent. Cuts in staff salaries and serious sacrifices in programs would have to be made, but it only took a half hour for the board to agree.
Rick Utley, an elder, says that decision “has produced a heart in Cornerstone unlike any church I have ever been involved with. The blessings that have come with it are hard to quantify.” Utley says it would now be hard for him to worship in a church that didn’t make the adjustments and sacrifices Cornerstone made to give at this level.
In 2008 the church will give away 55 percent of its budget to the poor and hungry through various ministries, including a $1 million annual commitment to Children’s Hunger Fund and a sizeable contribution to World Impact, which plants churches in urban America.
….
Chan didn’t want any part of it. “I kept thinking about all those people I’d seen in third world countries and it made me sick.”
Chan thought he knew what Jesus would do. He’d say, “Meet me at the park.” That was what Chan wanted. Just a patch of grass where the church could gather.
The solution was an outdoor amphi-theater, a simple structure enjoyed by the community during the week and used as a gathering place for worship on Sunday. The plan would save tens of millions of dollars. Even the elders got behind the idea.
If it rained, they’d get wet knowing their money was feeding the hungry.
emphasis added.
just go read both and think for a few minutes about how we do church in this country. Do you want to be a part of something like the glass walled extravaganza or the outdoor ampitheater?
hat tip to Challies for the link to Jared Wilson and hat tip to Jared Wilson for the links to the comparison and the title above.
I wish that I could embed vimeo videos. you have got to see this 8.5 minute clip from The Global Conversation. It might make you sick, but you must watch it.
Nathan Finn posted some great advice from Charles Simeon regarding what to do when hearing someone tell you a bad report about another person:
This sage advice comes from Charles Simeon, the great 19th century Anglican evangelical:
1st – To hear as little as possible what is to the prejudice of others.
2nd – To believe nothing of the kind till I am absolutely forced to it.
3rd – Never to drink into the spirit of one who circulates an ill report.
4th – Always to moderate, as far as I can, the unkindness which is expressed towards others.
5th – Always to believe, that if the other side were heard, a very different account would be given of the matter.
From Hugh Evan Hopkins, Charles Simeon of Cambridge (Eerdmans, 1977), p. 134.
It reminded me of the Texas Lawyers Creed which is the aspirational goal for how lawyers are to deal with one another, their clients and courts. It especially reminded me of this part of the Creed that seems to be ignored by so many lawyers (and people):
I will not, without good cause, attribute bad motives or unethical conduct to opposing counsel nor bring the profession into disrepute by unfounded accusations of impropriety. I will avoid disparaging personal remarks or acrimony towards opposing counsel, parties and witnesses. I will not be influenced by any ill feeling between clients. I will abstain from any allusion to personal peculiarities or idiosyncrasies of opposing counsel.
there is a new blog in the fold at First Things. It is Evangel. Headed up by Dr. Russell Moore and written by him and several others including Justin Taylor and Joe Carter. Looks like a good one to check out.
The decisive night of wrestling was on Monday, October 14, 1979—30 years ago today. His wife and two young sons were asleep. But Piper was up past midnight, writing in his journal, recording the direction God was irresistibly drawing him to.
The journal entry for that evening begins in this way:
I am closer tonight to actually deciding to resign at Bethel and take a pastorate than I have ever been. . . .
The urge is almost overwhelming. It takes this form: I am enthralled by the reality of God and the power of his Word to create authentic people.
I will not simply be pondered; I will be proclaimed.
My sovereignty is not simply to be scrutinized; it is to be heralded.
It is not grist for the mill of controversy; it is gospel for sinners who know that their only hope is the sovereign triumph of God’s grace over their rebellious will.
The calling to preach and pastor had become irresistible.
Matt Carter finished up the Blueprint series at Austin Stone Community Church yesterday. Please download all 5 of these messages and give them a listen.
At the beginning of yesterday’s message, Matt asked the only question really worth asking for believers. “Are we going to live the watered down version of Christianity that we’ve defined today or are we going to live Christianity as it is defined in the Bible?”
well? which is it for you? The version that fits in around the edges of our lives and pocketbook or the version that other people call us crazy for living?
The way I have been asking it of myself for 24 years or so is “what does really meaning it look like?”
I bet that it looks something like this video about front porch ministry:
Are we willing to live on our front porch for Jesus? Are we willing to move nine miles to the America within America where the need is overwhelming to live on the front porch for Jesus?
Mark Driscoll started the Austin Song of Solomon conference yesterday evening. It was an excellent way to spend a Friday evening with my lovely wife of 20 years.
Tim Hawks the pastor of Hill Country Bible Church kicked off the festivities by welcoming everyone to the church.
Mark spoke for the next couple of hours.
and then Mark and his wife Gracie answered audience questions.
Interstitial 