OK, John, I’m dying to ask:

1. Why do you care?

2. Has anyone at this blog, besides perhaps a commentator, posted anything about BM?

3. Can’t you spend the day thinking about Jesus and his grace instead of your anger and distaste for everything?

John, relax. God’s still in control.

or is it really an unorthodox and liberal view of Christianity?

Is an unorthodox and liberal view of Christianity any worse than an unorthodox and conservative view of Christianity?

Personally, I would like to think that being a Christ-follower transcends the arbitrary labels of “liberal” and “conservative”. Just because someone has different ideas about tax policy and the role of government than I do does not mean I will refuse to break the bread and drink the wine with them.

Of course there is such a thing as theological liberalism. Historically, theological liberals have gone the route of denying the deity of Christ and/or denying the physical resurrection of Christ. Those aren’t things I have actually seen McLaren do in any of his books. As far I can tell, he actually affirms those things.

He may go too further than I am comfortable with in agreeing with certain concepts of liberal theology, mainly in his apparent acceptance of higher criticism, scriptural authorship, and his description of other religions, but I have not seen him sort of take the “big leap” yet. I will see, I guess, what he says in his new book. Just reading through the table of contents and skimming through it quickly, it doesn’t seem to really break away from his previous books too much.

All I’m saying is that I’m unwilling to convict someone of being an outright heretic on the basis of what he doesn’t say. I’m also unwilling to agree with assessments of other people’s writing that are patently dishonest even if I don’t completely agree with the work that is being assessed.

Just for the Record, I call John MacArthur JMac.

Not making a funny. Too lazy to type.

http://networkedblogs.com/p28193086

finally the final question
Michael Wittmer addresses Brian McLaren’s tenth and final question, How can we translate our quest into action?

Wittmer writes, “Brian closes his book by calling us to follow his lead and evolve to a higher community which consists of “Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, and others” and “welcomes all people to mature and advance in the human quest.” He warns that those of us who haven’t fully evolved “are likely to mock it or condemn it as something naïve, silly, or even evil,” but that’s just because we are defending the status quo from “innovators” like him.”

Wow! This is the new kind of christianity? One that includes all these? Clearly the new christianity of McLaren and the emerg* doesn’t mirror Scripture or God.

Happy birthday Joe!

We assign watchmen on the towers for a reason.

Unfortunately, these “watchmen” have assigned themselves.

I’m not that I’m anti-book review, it’s just that the woman who cuts my hair has more credentials than most of the people who write the reviews that PB cites. There are occasionally some who are a bit more credible, but they’re coming from such a narrow perspective that there’s plenty of reason not to take their word as gospel.

Re:14

I think Phil’s point addresses the crux of the problem.

There was a day and time where most of the “authorities” for solid Christian teaching were wise and learned people. In virtue of their background, education, experience, and position, they could be trusted to “man the towers.”

Now, we’ve got thousands of self-proclaimed watchers with nothing more than an internet connection and anger management issues.

So while I’m not against sound warnings against heterodox teachings (and McLaren sounds like he’s going off the rails, not that I’m an expert), I do think that CRN, Lighthouse, Crosstalk, etc., etc., would do the body of Christ immense good by just being quiet and minding their own business.

Now, we’ve got thousands of self-proclaimed watchers with nothing more than an internet connection and anger management issues.

And if ya disagree with them, you don’t have the Holy Spirit.

Neil #17. LOL. Too true.

I think you’re casting your pearls before swine here Pastorboy. Brian Mclaren is a heretic and anyone that can’t see that is either incredibly naive (like, born again yesterday) or a heretic themselves. Flame away. This great delusion creeping, nay, flooding into the church by ‘innovators’ is only serving to divide the sheep from the goats. It’s a painful process and the goats protest loudly. Sometimes the naive sheep do, too.

Paula (#22): I think you’re casting your pearls before swine here Pastorboy.

What’s it called when you cast your pearls before swine, then climb into the mud to retrieve those pearls, then cast them again, ad infinitum?

I had a feeling this would happen.

He is already a heretic this new book just confirms it.

e) The only person to give MacLaren a pass w/o reading the book would be Chad (who is not a writer here)

You left out..

f) and Chris L would take a swipe at Chad by fabricating something untrue.

I have not given McLaren a pass, Chris. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt and I am suspicious and skeptical of any “discerning” done by Chisham or his buddies.

Unless he comes out in this book and says Jesus is NOT Lord or has not been raised from the dead than my view of him will remain unchanged.

I actually agree with this statement. I think that one can actually heretical and still be a Christian, at least in the way that people use the term “heretic” today.

Historically, the debates on heresy focused on the person and nature of Christ more than the issues of one’s thoughts on hell, other religions, homosexuals, etc.

If McLaren came out and said something like he doesn’t think Jesus is any different than Allah or something crazy like that, I would think at point he’d be denying historic creeds. But up to then, being wrong, even on issues I’d consider pretty important, doesn’t mean you’re not a Christian.

Chris L – I shouldn’t have called your swipe at me “stupid.” It was mean and bully-like, perhaps, but not stupid.

Really, at times you are the opposite side of the same coin with John Chisham. Like John, once you dislike someone you seem unable to read them charitably (or read them accurately). You seem to be happiest when taking cheap shots at me at any opportunity you can find. So “mean” and “bully-like” is probably more accurate than “stupid.”

The reason I am giving him the benefit of the doubt is because I have read most of what he has written and heard him speak a number of times and like him and what he has to say. I consider him a brother in Christ who is striving to be faithful to the call God has laid on his life. He’s seeking God with all his heart, soul, mind and strength.

Heresy cannot be judged by outward appearances. It can only be judged by what a person says or teaches as compared to the written Word. Of course the rub comes in interpreting the Word where oft times men of good character and intent honestly disagree.

Says Who?

Well Chad, what I am referring to is that false prophets may appear pleasing on the outside and may speak pleasingly (e.g., WOF heretics that promote materialism). One cannot necessarily judge rightly by outward appearances.

By definition, heresy relates to the spread of false doctrine. Heresy may produce false actions (i.e., an outward appearance), as beliefs result in actions, but they are the result of the heresy, not the heresy itself.

#43
I read the entire Harper Collins Preview, and I saw PLENTY of red flags, though to be fair some of the thoughts were not finished. This idea by McLaren that we serve some fort of greco-roman god for one…there he goes talking about the catholics again (sorry Brett)

And John Chisham, Greco/Roman has nothing to do with Catholics.

I’m not really surprised that all this is lost on you.

Two things: I had a real cool visit with Opus today (an infrequent commenter on this site) he showed up at our service today. Real cool meeting a person from this site in person. He and I agreed that we seemed different in person than the personna we (I) have on this site.

As far as McLarens book, it does not surprise me that one who believes in Universal reconciliation, Christus victor, and the lack of a hell would enjoy this book. Chad, I am sure that you resonate with most of what BMac writes (BM has a different connotation for me) though you may disagree with some. Almost 80% of your denomination has gone liberal in the religious sense, meaning that it is closer to the Unitarian Universalists than the Wesley tradition. I would guess that if you dropped this book in most mainline denominations, most christians would see nothing wrong in its contents. That does not make his conclusions orthodox or Biblical.

As far as McLarens book, it does not surprise me that one who believes in Universal reconciliation, Christus victor, and the lack of a hell would enjoy this book.

So are you denying that the Christus Victor is Biblical? Interesting…

Seems like you have to outright deny passages like Colossians 2:9-12 if you deny that the Christus Victor theme is a valid view of the atonement.

#50 I think Christus Victor lacks the whole of scripture support; in a sense, Christ is victorious over sin and death, but that is part of his penal substitutionary atonement, which is predicted and spoken about through the whole of scripture.

#51 Well, look at the recent states concerning how Methodists (and other denominations) answer is Jesus the only way of salvation, and see if that a little higher percentage look to precepts of other faiths as equally valid – like BMac.

Though Wesley was not perfect in his theology, I do not think his messages would be welcome in most modern day Methodist churches, indeed, their practice and preaching would be quite foreign to him.

Chisham – if you have “stats” that show 80% of Methodists think there is another way of salvation besides Jesus, show them.

My money is on the fact that you are either a liar or just ignorant.

Although Pastorboy is pulling his stats out of thin air, it is undeniable that what Wesley “founded” is overwhelming more theologically liberal than he.

And although Pastorboy mentioned “preacing and practice” in #52, we all know what he means.

The largest U.S. Methodist group, the United Methodist Church (UMC), was formed in 1968 from a merger of the Methodist Church and the Evangelical United Brethren Church. The combined membership of the two bodies was 11 million in 1965, but by 1983 had dropped to roughly 9 million members. Like most liberal denominations, the UMC has been declining in membership each year. The UMC lost almost 2,000,000 members in the 1970s and ’80s. The United Methodist Church is extremely modernistic and ecumenical.
The United Methodist Church and Ecumenism

The United Methodist Church is a member of the radical National and World Council of Churches; in fact, the UMC is the largest financial supporter of the WCC. Roman Catholic Bishop James Malone, speaking before the UMC conference in Atlanta in 1972, said that the United Methodists and the RCC are on the same spiritual wave length. He announced an ecumenical dialogue between the RCC and the Methodists. Reporting on the success of RCC-UMC dialogue, Methodist Bishop William Cannon told the pope in 1982 that “doctrinally and spiritually, our two churches have much more in common than there are issues that separate us” and “there is a peculiar affinity between Methodists and Roman Catholics.” At its 1980 Quadrennial General Conference, the UMC set up a Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns to promote ecumenical activity. At his election to the presidency of the National Council of Churches in 1981, Methodist Bishop James Armstrong said, “I want to be such a bridge, helping to create an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect in which women and men can come together, races can come together, divergent points of view can come together. … we will continue to seize initiatives, pursuing dialogue with Roman Catholics, Southern Baptists, the National Association of Evangelicals, and others who name the name of Christ as well as humanizing groups and forces that do not share our Christian confession.” Efforts to absorb Methodists with other liberal denominations in the States have been in progress though the Consultation on Church Union (COCU) since 1961. This attempted union of Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists, United Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, and others has been making steady progress through the years.

United Methodist pastors participate in ecumenical clergy associations, joining hands at the local level with Roman Catholics, Unitarians, other Modernists, and non-Christians. An example is the Piedmont Interfaith Council which includes United Methodist churches in its membership. Its 1990 “Ecumenical Celebration of Thanksgiving” featured such “faith communities” as “the Franciscans, the Sikhs, the Japanese Community, Bahai, the Russian Jewish Emigres, Islam, Buddhist, the Native Americas and the Jewish and Christian faith traditions.” Another example is the Salem, Massachusetts, clergy association, which, in September 1993, welcomed a high priest from a witch’s coven into its membership. United Methodist pastor Ken Steigler was happy with this move, and said the group should become even more ecumenical by inviting Mormons, Buddhists, and Muslims to participate. UMC ecumenism and worldliness on the local level was illustrated when the Lafayette Park United Methodist Church in St. Louis co-sponsored in 1980 a cocktail party and house tour to raise funds for the restoration of a local Catholic shrine.

In these ecumenical adventures, Methodism has renounced its former position. The Twenty-five Articles of faith developed by John Wesley in 1784 and affirmed by Methodists until the second half of the 20th century, had these comments in regard to Romanism: “The Romish doctrine concerning purgatory, pardon, worshipping and adoration, as well of images, as of relics, and also invocation of saints, is a fond thing vainly invented and grounded upon no warrant of Scripture, but repugnant to the Word of God. … Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of our Lord … is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of the ordinance, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. … the sacrifice of masses in the which it is commonly said that the priest doth offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, is a blasphemous fable, and dangerous deceit” (Thomas Lewis, President of the General Conference, Handbook of the Methodist Protestant Church, 1925).

The Untied Methodist Church and Modernism

The prevailing theological climate in the UMC was stated by Bishop James Thomas at the UMC Quadrennial General Conference in 1976: “We do not believe … in rigid doctrinal concepts to hold us steady in a wavering world.” This is an understatement; the fact is that most UMC pastors don’t believe the Bible. Polls have shown that at least 30 percent of UMC ministers do not believe Jesus Christ is God, and 82% say they do not believe the Bible is the perfect Word of God. As early as 1968 a widely publicized scientific survey by Jeffrey Hadden which was published by the Washington University showed that about 60% of the Methodist clergy did not believe in the virgin birth and at least 50% did not believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ. A Gallup survey in 1982 revealed that 34% of Methodists believe community service is more important than proclaiming the Gospel. In The Battle for the Bible, respected evangelical leader Harold Lindsell stated, “It is not unfair to allege that among denominations like Episcopal, United Methodist, United Presbyterian, United Church of Christ, the Lutheran Church in America, and the Presbyterian Church U.S. there is not a single theological seminary that takes a stand in favor of biblical infallibility. And there is not a single seminary where there are not faculty members who disavow one or more of the major teachings of the Christian faith.”

Modernism is not new in the UMC. It began to take root in the late 1800s, as Methodist pastors were indoctrinated in higher criticism in Germany and returned to spread this poison. Robert Chiles has documented this shift from historic orthodoxy to liberalism in his book Theological Transition in American Methodists: 1790-1935. A book entitled The Christlike God, published in the early 1940s by Methodist Bishop Francis McConnell of the New York area, denied the deity of Jesus Christ. McConnell said, “Is not this tendency to deify Jesus more heathen than Christian?” On the west coast, Methodist Bishop Gerald Kennedy in Los Angeles was spouting every sort of unbelief and heresy prior to 1950. He denied the Inspiration of Scripture, the Trinity, the Atonement, the Deity of Christ, the Second Coming. Kennedy said, “I believe the testimony of the New Testament taken as a whole is against the deity of Jesus.”

Apostasy among Methodist missionaries is illustrated by E. Stanley Jones, missionary to India. In his book Christ and the Round Table Jones stated, “If verbal infallibility is insisted upon, then the certainty is very precarious” (p. 257). In his Song of Accounts Jones says, “We do not believe that the New Testament is the revelation of God–that would be the Word become printer’s ink” (p. 377). In his book Mahatma Gandhi: An Interpretation, Jones testified that he went to India to convert the heathen, but in the end the heathen conquered him and he became an idolizer of Gandhi and a promoter of pacifism. In 1943 Jones delineated his concept of a World Church Union. By this plan there would be a World Assembly of the Church of Christ and each nation would have a national expression of this world body. The World Assembly would be made up of delegates from the national assemblies; and, “interpreting the mind of Christendom on world affairs, … would be listened to by the nations.” This sounds more like the harlot of Revelation than the apostolic church of the first century. Jones denounced capitalism and praised Russian communism. In his book The Choice Before Us Jones argued for the establishment of a “new economic order” on earth which would redistribute wealth along communist lines. Jones identified this communist world order with the kingdom of God. In Song of Accounts, Jones says, “I had to go outside my native land to make a discovery of the kingdom of God. I found it … in Russia” (pp. 148,149).

At its 1972 Quadrennial Conference, the UMC formally approved a policy of doctrinal pluralism founded upon the four-fold authority of Scripture, Tradition, Experience, and Reason. United Methodist “scholars” participated in the Jesus Seminar which determined that Jesus did not believe that He was God, was not born of a virgin, did not perform miracles, did not give prophecies of the future, did not die for man’s sins, and did not rise from the dead. Speaking at a meeting connected with the 1972 UMC Quadrennial Conference, Cecil Williams, pastor of the Glide Memorial Methodist Church in San Francisco, Calif., said, “I don’t want to go to no heaven … I don’t believe in that stuff . I think it’s a lot of – - – -.” (Here he used a curse word.) William’s church replaced the choir with a rock band, and its “celebrations” have included dancing and even nudity. A Jewish rabbi is on William’s staff. After attending a service at Glide Memorial, a newspaper editor wrote, “The service, in my opinion, was an insult to every Christian attending and was the most disgusting display of vulgarity and sensuousness I have ever seen anywhere.” In spite of William’s apostasy and immorality, his bishop has continued to support him.

One UMC pastor with wide experience who wrote on the conditions within his denomination said, “The pluralism of theology in United Methodism is bewildering. In my last year of denominational seminary, one classmate wanted a Methodist pastorate so he could help people get rid of the superstitious notion that there was a Higher Power who restricts their freedom to be authentically human. Yet in the same class were other seminarians who were eager to preach Jesus as Savior and Lord. Under pluralism, United Methodist clergy can hold almost any view–unless (and here’s the rub) it is too strongly and explicitly orthodox-evangelical. One student pastor in Ohio heard a professor at a United Methodist seminary deny the necessity of the Resurrection. The student, in his parish newsletter, then stated that, without the authenticity of the Resurrection, there could be no Christianity. A very much dissatisfied superintendent called him to warn that if he expected to be ordained into a pluralistic church, he could not be so rigid and dogmatic over specific doctrines, including the Resurrection. Yet few such restrictions seem to apply in the [modernistic] direction. … A pastor who supports the UMC system can be anything from quietly conservative to universalist, agnostic, or even father Left. … For many reasons, the United Methodist climate is alien and inhospitable to forthright evangelical faith” (Pastor Charles Keysor, Christianity Today, Nov. 9, 1984).

McLaren’s rebuke of Mark Driscoll’s conception of Jesus on pages 125-126 is nothing short of brilliant.

The denigration of Scripture? wow. Who knew???

Chisham, compared to you the Puritans would be “liberal.” What you call “liberal” I call striving to be faithful to Jesus.

There is a whole lot of difference Chad between eating with pagans (something I do almost daily) and saying ‘we are going to call you brothers and integrate your rituals into our services of worship to make you feel more comfortable’ or saying ‘we will agree that the god you worship is the same as our God’. That is ecumenism, and it is wicked.

Its 1990 “Ecumenical Celebration of Thanksgiving” featured such “faith communities” as “the Franciscans, the Sikhs, the Japanese Community, Bahai, the Russian Jewish Emigres, Islam, Buddhist, the Native Americas and the Jewish and Christian faith traditions.” Another example is the Salem, Massachusetts, clergy association, which, in September 1993, welcomed a high priest from a witch’s coven into its membership. United Methodist pastor Ken Steigler was happy with this move, and said the group should become even more ecumenical by inviting Mormons, Buddhists, and Muslims to participate.

Thats a far cry from Jesus eating with sinners…

I don’t know PB, I side with Chad on this one. I have to say of all the Methodists I have met, 100% of them profess that faith in Christ is the only way to be saved. (and yes, I am including Chad in that group). So there is my statistic.

Well, Mike, they may profess Jesus, but which one?

The Jesus of the Bible made it very clear that He was unique, that He was fully God and fully man, that He had the power to lay down his life and take it up again. Yet, many Methodists do not believe that Jesus even rose from the dead, do not believe the inerrancy of the Bible, and some, like Chad, deny salvation by faith in Christ alone because he believes that all people will eventually be saved!

Re:69

Isn’t that two strikes? In which case PB isn’t out?

PB, 100% of Methodists are referring to the Jesus of the Bible.

And since 100% is bigger than 80%, my statistic is better than yours.

I have just finished BM’s book and will happily give it my full endorsement – from beginning to end.

Never saw that coming.

Thoughts?

I must admit that so far in my reading, I haven’t really found anything to get all up in arms about. Actually, so far, it’s not looking like McLaren is saying anything much different than what he’s been saying. Again, I have ways to go, yet.

Actually, much of the stuff McLaren says in the beginning of the book regarding Greco-Roman thought, Greg Boyd has been saying for the last 10-15 years. Tim Challies would pretty much hate Greg Boyd as well, so, honestly, I gave up caring what he thinks a long time ago.

John H – Yeah, I don’t really care much what Challies has to say. I disagree with him on lots of things.

Phil, in my first post about McLaren’s book I said the same thing: He’s not saying anything new.

I do chuckle when people like Tim Challies resort to the, “hey he’s saying everyone is wrong but him” defense. Apparently, the only people who are actually allowed to claim everyone is wrong but them are staunch Calvinistists…

Chad, He hates that we have hijacked the one true God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob through Jesus and turned him into something he is not.

That’s a pretty wild accusation to make regarding 1500 years of church history.

Who knew.

That’s a pretty wild accusation to make regarding 1500 years of church history.

Who knew.

Not that I’m equating McLaren with Luther or anything, but isn’t that what the Pope would have said about the Reformers?

I just don’t understand how we can pick and choose when we’re going to stick to Church tradition and when we decide it’s ok to break away from it.

Luther also based his critique and solutions on the Bible, not wishful musings.

Hey Phil? I wonder if you have been as pleased as I with the copious amounts of Scripture McLaren cites on nearly every page of this book, drawing out themes and making connections and inviting us all to live in the words of Scripture?

Of course, I imagine that someone who doesn’t read the book won’t know any of that and make judgments based on their own “wishful musings.”

BTW, regarding McLaren’s whole Greco-Roman verses Jewish worldview thing, I might add that I do think that McLaren may be overstating the case a bit. Many Jewish cities were quite Hellenistic during the first century, and Greek philosophy was influencing Jewish thought. I’ve been reading a lot of Ben Witherington recently, and he does a very good job of explaining the social and political context of the New Testament.

I do, however, appreciate McLaren’s insistence that Scripture needs to be understood in light of its Jewish roots.

Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles from even a secular point of view one of the greatest minds that mankind has ever seen. And as such, and given his self-aware understanding of his specific mission to the Gentiles, I don’t think he would have missed the opportunity and obligation, for that matter, to forget to point out to us gentiles “Hey guys you can’t look at my writings from the Greco-Roman Westernized world view.” (Not to mention the holy spirit inspired thing).

John H-

Who says Paul didn’t? As is usually the case, the problem is not with the messenger and what they said but with his or her interpreters that followed.

East meets West in Christianity and the Judeo-Christian tradition is called that for a reason. It is a synthesis. And I take very strong exception with the the notion that the Church has been missing it from the get go.

An understanding of Eastern Judeo thought certainly enriches our knowledge and understanding of the Biblical narrative in some respects, particularly in understanding parables and allusions, for example. But the key tenants of the Gospel message are trans-cultural and understandable by almost any literate culture without benefit of a deeper understanding of the Judaic roots that are not already available to the reader from any culture in the pages of the Canon as a whole.

Indeed, Luke in his Gospel, for example, takes special pains to explain Hebraisms to his Gentile audience where appropriate. But again, such exposition may enrich, but they are not essential to the understanding of the Gospel message.

John H-

The Ethiopian eunuch that Philip encountered would beg to differ with your thesis that the message is simple and easily understood without an interpreter.

While the Spirit certainly can and does work in such remote ways, we need one another to better understand life with God (and the Scripture that witness to God).

What I hear you saying is that MY Western mindset and categories for understanding the Bible is wholly sufficient. What if those categories are wholly insufficient? What if they are wholly wrong?

What I hear you saying is that MY Western mindset and categories for understanding the Bible is wholly sufficient. What if those categories are wholly insufficient? What if they are wholly wrong?

No, what I am saying is the Holy Spirit is perfectly capable of ensuring the Gospel message was communicated in such a manner as to be understandable by all cultures.

Further our understanding is not created in a vacuum. We do have Church history and a body of theological theology thousands of years old. “Christian” theology did not spring from from a vacuum, but came out of its Jewish roots by definition. Just like Prego “its in there” already.

If this was **so** important as McClaren seems to posit then I think it only fair to assume that Paul (and the others) would have made an issue of it.

I’m trying to understand your argument here. I would think Paul did not feel the need to explain every reference he used simply because he made certain assumptions about the people who were going to be reading his letters. He simply assumed that if he quoted from a work like the Wisdom of Solomon that those reading his letter would get the reference. It’s much like an American politician quoting the line “We hold these truths to be self-evident…”. He just assumes that his audience will get that reference. He doesn’t stop and say, “by the way, for those of you who don’t know, I’m referring to the Declaration of Independence”.

When we read the New Testament as people living 2000 years removed and on the other side of the world, it seems odd to me to think that we would just inherently understand every reference in Paul’s thoughts. Certainly, the Holy Spirit can guide and direct a reader with no previous exposure, but I also think He guides and directs us in the way of scholarship in these areas as well.

The Ethiopian eunuch that Philip encountered would beg to differ with your thesis that the message is simple and easily understood without an interpreter.

We have interpreters. Two thousand years of them. We even have a record of the interpretation given to the Ethopian as the Holy Spirit saw fit to be recorded. We have record that Paul and Timothy and Apollos, et. al. reasoned from the OT Scriptures. That theology is ALL a part of, and has already been incorporated into our Christian heritage. That we have “gotten it all wrong these thousands of years” is rediculous.

Eric,
Have you read the book?

No, what I am saying is the Holy Spirit is perfectly capable of ensuring the Gospel message was communicated in such a manner as to be understandable by all cultures.
Further our understanding is not created in a vacuum. We do have Church history and a body of theological theology thousands of years old. “Christian” theology did not spring from from a vacuum, but came out of its Jewish roots by definition. Just like Prego “its in there” already.

But just “understanding” the message is not all we are called to do, John. We are called to live it. And we do it better at times and terrible at other times, both individually and corporately. Sometimes the Church of Jesus seems to be beating with God’s heart and other times it seems to be terribly out of step.

Jesus said the Holy Spirit would LEAD us into truth. That doesn’t mean (to me at least) that the Spirit led people in the first 3 centuries and then quit, or that now the Spirit only “enhances” our understanding of the things mused about 2000 years ago. I think it means that God is actively engaging the world even now opening our eyes and transforming our hearts so that we actually can GROW in Christ (as Paul calls it, from glory to glory).

This is not to say that the past got it all wrong. And McLaren says as much (explicitly). It is to say, however, that there is a dynamic growth going on here and there is a maturity for one culture that is good and a maturity for another that may not be so good. Just like with my kids there is a mature way for a 5 year old to act that takes into account his age and then there is an immature way for a 5 year old to act.

I don’t know that I would say he is pitting them against each other (Phil?) but rather arguing that one line of thought became the dominant strand (the Greco/Roman one) and has eclipsed the discussion ever since.

Yeah, I wouldn’t say he exactly pits them against each other, but rather that in the western church, specifically, the dominant philosophical stream has led theologians to conclusions that are counter to the God described in Jewish Scripture.

I’ve actually been meeting with a Deacon from the local Eastern Orthodox congregation (a Deacon in that church is kind of analogous to an assistant pastor in Protestant churches – he went to Orthodox seminary) occasionally over coffee (and no, I’m not thinking of converting…), and it’s interesting to me to hear his perspective on some of these issues. It’s especially intriguing to see what a church looks like that basically skipped the philosophy of Augustine. They don’t spend nearly the amount of time dwelling on one’s personal theology as we do, that’s for sure.

People can form their opinions however they like. I’ve just found that when it comes to book reviews, especially, it seems that it’s really difficult to trust much of what I read. There are few people who I would trust without hesitation, but there are other who I know to take with a grain of salt or just ignore.

Also, regarding the legal system and Scripture and testimony of others, I’d say that a dude sitting at a computer giving his opinion about a book doesn’t live up to the Biblical standard of two or three witnesses. Just sayin’…

If McClaren is saying that we have an imbalanced view of God, what is he proposing is a balanced view?

Never-mind then…

Neil,
That wasn’t meant to be dismissive but it actually the main thrust of the book. I just don’t have time to get into specifics at the moment but will as i blog through it.

I’m sorry, Neil

I think I will buy the book, and I will read it, and I will give an honest opinion about it.

Whoops…I tried that with JWTSC and all I got was how I misread it, how I hated Rob Bell…bla bla bla…

Therefore it is probably not worth the effort…damned if you do, damned if you dont.

I’m about halfway through the book, and I have to say, so far, I’m pleasantly surprised. Based on the reviews, I guess I was expecting much worse. There are some things I have qualms with (as is typical with McLaren), but nothing that rises to the level of the verbal hissy-fits I’ve read.