No Place For Truth?

Thomas Oden is my favorite Wesleyan theologian. He was a liberal in the sixties. But something happened. He was driven away from theological liberalism to embrace Protestant Orthodoxy. Oden writes with clarity and passion about the need for the Mainline denominations to return to the truth. Until then, there is no ground for unity.

In Turning Around The Mainline Oden writes:

Oldline ecumenical debate and planning are prone to misfire through a fundamental misunderstanding of the relation of unity and truth: They do no seek unity based on truth.

Four modern ecumenical arguments in particular misfire, as shown by David Mills. They even make Christian disunity more likely. These four following arguments have prevailed in liberal ecumenism, each unintentionally eliciting disunity. Each is a mistake “if-then” correlation:

1. If we can just get together on some common ethical standards, then we will therefore achieve the unity of believers.

2. If we could have the same open ecumenical feelings or experiences, then we would feel our unity.

3. If we could just be open to dialogue, then we would grow toward unity.

4. If we merge the separate institutions based on different memories created by the Spirit, then we would experience our unity through an institution, and thus we now must renew our commitment to the institutional vestiges of ecumenism.

All these attempts are alike in one way: they put unity ahead of truth. They squander the truth to achieve a superficial unity. All are mistaken. All spawn disillusionment with efforts at Christian unity. Together they have resulted in the ecumenical turbulence that now buffets us.

All misfire for the same reason: they base unity on something other than the truth, by avoiding the only basis from which Christian unity can emerge—that is the revealed Word whose hearing is enabled by the Holy Spirit and received through faith. (111)

HT: Kevin DeYoung

An Emergent Woodstock?

The Emergent movement is desperately trying to stay alive and relevant. Of course, in one sense they will always be with us for error and heresy have always been with the church. Next week a plethora of emergent leaders and former evangelicals will gather for a festival in North Carolina. The gathering is called The Wild Goose Festival.

Here is how the organizers describe the event:
“The Wild Goose is a Celtic metaphor for the Holy Spirit. We are followers of Jesus creating a festival of justice, spirituality, music and the arts. The festival is rooted in the Christian tradition and therefore open to all regardless of belief, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, denomination or religious affiliation.”

What a strange revision of both history and Christianity to say that it is part of the Christian tradition to embrace all religious beliefs and sexual practices.

The line-up of speakers will feature: Brian McLaren, Jim Wallis, Tony Jones, Tony Campolo, Phyllis Tickle, Shane Claiborne, Frank Schaeffer, Lynn Hybels, and many more. Clearly, the message coming from the Wild Goose Festival will be confusing at best, heretical at worst. Among the errors of the emergent movement is the denial of the substitutionary atonement, the uniqueness of Christ, the necessity of faith, the doctrine of hell, etc. It is now characteristic of emergents to reject biblical sexual ethics as well. This is an important connection because sexual perversion tends to grow in the garden of theological liberalism.

Wild Goose Festival - June 23 - 26, 2011 - Shakori Hills Farm, NC from Wild Goose on Vimeo.

When the big tent gets too big...

Al Mohler's latest post has me thinking about evangelicalism's tendency to not guard its boundaries very well.

1. The enemy never tires of sneaking heresy into the church.

In his post, Mohler comments on the new book "Is God a Christian?" by R. Kirby Godsey. It is a rehash of tired old heresies. Godsey denies the deity of Christ and embraces radical pluralism, the idea that all religions lead to God. What makes this interesting is that Godsey is a Southern Baptist. In fact he was the president of Mercer University, the largest Southern Baptist entity in the state of Georgia (and that's saying something!).

Doctrine is glorious for a number of reasons. When we talk about "doctrine" we are talking about that which God has revealed to us in His Word about himself, creation, and his work of redemption through Jesus. For these reasons, doctrine is precious and must be carefully taught and guarded.

Godsey, on the other hand is suspicious of doctrine. For him, doctrine is divisive, an unnecessary throwback to a bygone era. "Doctrines are simply the residue of religious experience."

2. Heresy is progressive.

Godsey did not begin writing heresy as egregious as that found in his latest book. His errors were progressive. We see the progressiveness of heresy throughout church history. We see it in our own day as well whether we are talking about Rob Bell or Brian Maclaren. What begin as seemingly small errors, if left uncorrected, will often blossom in full-blown heresy. All that is required are pastors and elders who, although orthodox themselves, fail to protect the church from encroaching errors.

3. "Big Tent" evangelicalism is usually too big.
The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship formed to allow moderates within the Southern Baptist Convention to organize and fund their own missionaries and institutions. They found the theological conservatism which had come to characterize the Southern Baptist Convention beginning in the mid-1980's was too small a tent. Before long however it was clear that the boundaries of the CBF tent were quite wide. They refused to make any statements regarding homosexuality or abortion. They also rejected notions of biblical inerrancy. They began to give voice to feminist and other forms of liberation theology. They gave voice to those who denied the substitutionary nature of Christ's atonement. And it has only gotten worse.

4. "Moderates" tend not to remain moderate.
As Mohler points out, the "moderate" Cooperative Baptist Fellowship is hosting a book signing by Godsey.

Though Godsey’s views are not representative of most SBC “moderates” who opposed the conservative redirection and recovery of the denomination, Godsey and his heresies have yet to be repudiated.

To the contrary, Kirby Godsey has been a major figure in moderate Baptist life. His leadership at Mercer University was championed and fiercely defended by the moderate establishment, and this book is published by Mercer University Press. Godsey is credited with envisioning what became the New Baptist Covenant meeting in Atlanta in 2008, largely convened by former President Jimmy Carter. An event celebrating the book, complete with a book signing, is scheduled for the upcoming meeting of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship in Tampa, Florida.

So-called "moderates" tend not to stay moderate for very long.

5. The conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention was a blessing.
Had the Southern Baptist Convention not turned away from the liberal direction of its institutions, it would be a spiritually desolate organization much like the Disciples of Christ or American Baptists.

The appeal of churches who know what they believe...

The growth of theologically conservative churches and the corresponding decline of liberal churches has been the occasion of a lot of speculation over the years. Even sociologists have offered opinions. The findings usually suggest that people can't deal with the thoughtful subtleties and ambiguities of liberal churches. Therefore they flock to the so-called easy answers provided by conservative churches. It is reasoned that people feel "safe" with more rules so they prefer conservative churches. However, this assumes that conservative churches are more legalistic than liberal churches. But this is not at all the case. Liberal churches have the same capacity for legalism as their fundamentalist counterparts. The rules are simply different.

I would argue that liberal churches have a far greater capacity for legalism than conservative churches (I am using the term "conservative" to refer to those churches which adhere to biblical orthodoxy). One of the defining characteristics of the liberal church is the casting aside of the doctrine of the atonement. The cross is reduced to a mere demonstration of love by God; a demonstration that we must now seek to emulate. Hence, more rules. Indeed, the battle cry of the liberal church is "deeds not creeds." "It is not about what we believe," the liberals say. "It is about what we do." It is no surprise then, that the rules for behavior, belief, thought, and words is as intense in the average liberal church as anything you will find in any fundamentalist congregation.

As far as the charge that liberal churches embrace ambiguity and mystery while conservative churches opt for easy answers, I say: nonsense! Have you ever heard a liberal preacher expound on the Canaanite slaughter from Exodus? No ambiguity at all. It simply did not happen as the Bible describes. "God had nothing to do with it," we are told by the liberal preacher. Now let's move on. But for the preacher (and the church) committed to the reliability of the biblical record it is not so easy. The testimony of Scripture cannot be dismissed as erroneous. The faithful conservative preacher deals soberly with such texts, understanding that there is a certain amount of mystery involved. Careful meditation and a humble epistemology are required of the conservative church if they are to faithfully navigate highly challenging texts of Scripture. For the liberal, no such careful navigation is required. If a text is not "intellectually satisfying" (a phrase a liberal O.T. scholar used when telling me why he did not believe the creation account, the flood, the exodus, the miracles of Jesus, etc) it simply dismissed. That is far easier than having to carefully study and interpret challenging texts from a position of belief.

Al Mohler has posted an interesting article on the "success" of conservative churches as compared to the decline of liberal churches. He interacts with a now decades old book on the subject by Dean Kelley and a recent article by David Brooks which appeared in The New York Times.

Dr. Mohler points out that while sociology can observe the appeal of ardor and clarity, it cannot grasp the power of truth. This is a reality that is spiritually discerned.

A sociological analysis can distinguish between stronger and weaker forms of faith and belief and can measure qualities such as rigor, ardor, and definiteness. Sociology can trace developments and offer research-based predictions about the future.

What sociology cannot do is deal with the most important question of all — the truth question. That is where Mormons and evangelical Christians part company. Orthodox Jews, Jesuits, and Jehovah’s Witnesses all fall on the “strong” side of the sociological divide in their own way, but each has a completely distinct worldview based upon very different understandings of the truth. Mormons and Methodists have very different theologies, to say the least, but it takes a theologically informed Mormon and Methodist to know the difference.

Dean M. Kelley and David Brooks, each writing for a very different audience, have much to say to evangelical Christians. But, in the end, sociology can get us only so far and no further. The rigor, ardor, and energies of evangelical churches must not be held merely in a desire to hold to a form of religion that will grow, but in a biblical commitment to hold fast to the truth of the Gospel and to share that saving truth with the whole world.

We are left with what David Brooks described as the “blunt theological talk of the church ladies” in that African village — “right and wrong, salvation and damnation.” Such is the Kingdom.

Read the entire article HERE.

Scorning what is holy...

“There’s nothing wrong with talking and singing about how the ‘Blood will never lose its power’ and ‘Nothing but the blood will save us.' Those are powerful metaphors. But we don’t live any longer in a culture in which people offer animal sacrifices to the gods.

“People did live that way for thousands of years, and there are pockets of primitive cultures around the world that do continue to understand sin, guilt, and atonement in those ways. But most of us don’t. What the first Christians did was look around them and put the Jesus story in language their listeners would understand.”

- Rob Bell on the atonement from Love Wins

To strip the atonement of its substitutionary nature, as Rob Bell does, is to strip it of its power. It is to take the "good" out of the good news. It is to rip the heart out of the Gospel and therefore the hope out of human hearts. It is an act of profound cruelty for it robs the sinner of what he truly needs: a guilt-bearing substitute.

This is nothing new. Theological liberals have been diluting and even neutering the gospel for generations. In the 1920's J. Gresham Machen saw this clearly.

They [liberal preachers] speak with disgust of those who believe ‘that the blood of our Lord, shed in a substitutionary death, placates an alienated Deity and makes possible welcome for the returning sinner.’ Against the doctrine of the Cross they use every weapon of caricature and vilification. Thus they pour out their scorn upon a thing so holy and so precious that in the presence of it the Christian heart melts in gratitude too deep for words. It never seems to occur to modern liberals that in deriding the Christian doctrine of the cross, they are trampling upon human hearts. (Christianity and Liberalism, 120 [pagination may differ])

HT: Kevin DeYoung

Heaven and Hell

The latest edition of The White Horse Inn features a discussion with Kevin DeYoung about Heaven and Hell. Take a listen HERE.

Also read this post by Michael Horton regarding Rob Bell's most recent denials of the biblical teaching about hell.

"No Doctrine Stands Alone"

The latest controversy over the doctrine of hell has raised the larger of issue of Christian doctrine in general. It is no surprise that there are certain doctrines, not least of all the gospel itself (1 Cor 1:18ff) which offend modern sensabilities. The project of liberal theology since Schleirmacher has been to make Christianity plausible to its "cultured despisers." This same project was carried forth by Rudolph Bultmann, Harry Emerson Fosdick and more recently by the emergent kids. The intentions to deny, ignore, or redefine key biblical doctrines are all in an effort to reach more people, which is noble. But ultimately it is a fool's errand for it does not take long to figure out that tinkering with one doctrine inevitably leads to compromises in another and so forth.

From Al Mohler:

The first issue is a changed view of God. The biblical vision of God has been rejected by the culture as too restrictive of human freedom and offensive to human sensibilities. God’s love has been redefined so that it is no longer holy. God’s sovereignty has been reconceived so that human autonomy is undisturbed. In recent years, even God’s omniscience has been redefined to mean that God perfectly knows all that He can perfectly know, but He cannot possibly know a future based on free human decisions.

Evangelical revisionists promote an understanding of divine love that is never coercive and would disallow any thought that God would send impenitent sinners to eternal punishment in the fires of hell. They are seeking to rescue God from the bad reputation He picked up by associating with theologians who for centuries taught the traditional doctrine. God is just not like that, they reassure. He would never sentence anyone — however guilty — to eternal torment and anguish.

The Christian faith is not a series of loosly connected doctrines. The Christian faith is a doctrine made up of many parts beautifully connected and interdepent.

Mohler continues:

Extending this argument further, it would surely be easier to persuade secular persons to believe in a God who would never judge anyone deserving of eternal punishment than it would to persuade them to believe in the God preached by Jonathan Edwards or Charles Spurgeon. But the urgent question is this: Is evangelical theology about marketing God to our contemporary culture, or is it our task to stand in continuity with orthodox biblical conviction–whatever the cost? As was cited earlier, modern persons demand that God must be a humanitarian, and He is held to human standards of righteousness and love. In the end, only God can defend himself against His critics.

Our responsibility is to present the truth of the Christian faith with boldness, clarity, and courage — and defending the biblical doctrine in these times will require all three of these virtues. Hell is an assured reality, just as it is presented so clearly in the Bible. To run from this truth, to reduce the sting of sin and the threat of hell, is to pervert the Gospel and to feed on lies. Hell is not up for a vote or open for revision. Will we surrender this truth to modern skeptics?

Current controversies raise this issue anew among American Christians and even among some evangelicals. Nevertheless, there is no way to deny the Bible’s teaching on hell and remain genuinely evangelical. No doctrine stands alone.

Read Mohler's entire article HERE.

Rob Bell on Good Morning America

Thanks to Denny Burk for linking to Rob Bell's appearance on Good Morning America.

The story features a tweet posted from Josh Harris which gets to the point: “There’s nothing loving about preaching a false gospel.”

The report also features Al Mohler representing the historic, orthodox consensus:
“If indeed Rob Bell denies the existence of hell, this is a betrayal of biblical truth that has severe spiritual and evangelistic consequences… Jesus was himself very, very clear about the reality and threat of hell.”

Serene Jones, President of Union Theological Seminary, represented the liberal side of the debate:
“I think that the people who are going after Rob Bell as controversial are themselves closer to heresy than Rob Bell is… Jesus’ message was basically that the love of God is stronger than anything we can do. And the forgiveness of God is stronger, so why would that God be torturing people in some made-up hell?… Centuries of theologians … have said that the question of heaven and hell was not something that we should be worrying about but rather doing good in this life and loving God.”

President Jones' answer affirms the truth of what Machen wrote almost 100 years ago. Liberalism is not so much a form of Christianity but an entirely different religion. They have embraced another gospel.

A Mighty Battle

From Fred Zaspel's wonderful new work, The Theology of B.B. Warfield:

For nearly a century before Warfield arrived on its faculty, Princeton Seminary had stood out as the scholarly bastion of the historic Reformed faith. And due in large measure to the towering influence of Old Princeton, much of the new liberalizing tendencies in the church had been held back in significant degree. By means of his 2,700 students and his endless literary output, Warfield played an enormous role in this. But the undercurrent was always present, and within a decade after his death, liberal currents of thought would gain prominence in the Presbyterian church and at his beloved Princeton also. Warfield once met the wife of the seminary president J. Ross Stevenson while walking down a Princeton street, and she implored him: “Dr. Warfiled, I hear there is going to be trouble at the General Assembly. Do let us pray for peace.” To this he replied, “I am praying that if they do not do what is right, there may be a mighty battle.”

HT: Kevin DeYoung

The Christianity of the Future?

"When a church doesn't take itself seriously, neither do its members. It is hard to believe that as recently as 1960, members of mainline churches (Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans and the like) accounted for 40% of all American Protestants. Today, it's more like 12% (17 million out of 135 million). Some of the precipitous decline is due to lower birthrates among the generally blue-state mainliners, but it also is clear that millions of mainline adherents (and especially their children) have simply walked out of the pews never to return. According to the Hartford Institute for Religious Research, in 1965, there were 3.4 million Episcopalians; now, there are 2.3 million. The number of Presbyterians fell from 4.3 million in 1965 to 2.5 million today. Compare that with 16 million members reported by the Southern Baptists.

"When your religion says "whatever" on doctrinal matters, regards Jesus as just another wise teacher, refuses on principle to evangelize and lets you do pretty much what you want, it's a short step to deciding that one of the things you don't want to do is get up on Sunday morning and go to church.

"It doesn't help matters that the mainline churches were pioneers in ordaining women to the clergy, to the point that 25% of all Episcopal priests these days are female, as are 29% of all Presbyterian [PCUSA] pastors, according to the two churches. A causal connection between a critical mass of female clergy and a mass exodus from the churches, especially among men, would be difficult to establish, but is it entirely a coincidence? Sociologist Rodney Stark ("The Rise of Christianity") and historian Philip Jenkins ("The Next Christendom") contend that the more demands, ethical and doctrinal, that a faith places upon its adherents, the deeper the adherents' commitment to that faith. Evangelical and Pentecostal churches, which preach biblical morality, have no trouble saying that Jesus is Lord, and they generally eschew women's ordination. The churches are growing robustly, both in the United States and around the world.
"Despite the fact that median Sunday attendance at Episcopal churches is 80 worshipers, the Episcopal Church, as a whole, is financially equipped to carry on for some time, thanks to its inventory of vintage real estate and huge endowments left over from the days (no more!) when it was the Republican Party at prayer. Furthermore, it has offset some of its demographic losses by attracting disaffected liberal Catholics and gays and lesbians.

". . . As for the rest of the Episcopalians, the phrase "deck chairs on the Titanic" comes to mind.
"So this is the liberal Christianity that was supposed to be the Christianity of the future: disarray, schism, rapidly falling numbers of adherents, a collapse of Christology and national meetings that rival those of the Modern Language Assn. for their potential for cheap laughs. And they keep telling the Catholic Church that it had better get with the liberal program (ordain women, bless gay unions and so forth) or die. Sure."

- From a Los Angeles Times article by Charlotte Allen (Catholicism editor for Beliefnet)

As the seminaries go...

The new direction of the Clarmont School of Theology, a United Methodist institution, demonstrates once again how theological liberalism inevitably leads to apostasy. This is one of the reasons why many of us are sticklers for detail when it comes to doctrine. The first reason is that love for and faithfulness to God demands holding firm to His Word. But secondly, when the tent of acceptable doctrine becomes broader than the Scriptures allow then ruin is sure to follow.

Al Mohler comments:

The leftward march of liberal Protestantism is hardly news, but on occasion a development arises that serves as something of a parable of that trajectory. Such is the case this week with news from California that the Claremont School of Theology, a school historically related to the United Methodist Church, is transforming itself into a multifaith center for the training of clergy.

In a press conference held on June 9, leaders of the school formally announced the “University Project,” which will involve the addition of programs to train Muslim imams and Jewish rabbis. Programs to train Buddhist and Hindu religious leaders are to be added in the future.

The school’s Board of Trustees voted back in 2008 to inaugurate the program. A statement from the school explains that this vote “set in motion the University Project as a means to rethink classical models of theological education in an effort to promote interreligious cooperation and ethical integrity in the training of religious leaders for a variety of religious traditions, including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and others.”

David Roozen of the Institute for Religion Research at Hartford Theological Seminary told The Los Angeles Times that Claremont’s plan is “really kind of a creative, bold move.” He also suggested that liberal Protestants have been moving toward more expansive multifaith dialogue — a dialogue he described as on a continuum alongside race, gender, and sexual orientation. “Multifaith is the new ‘other,’” he told the paper. “It’s kind of the next step.”

The next step toward what? In a sense, the announcement from Claremont is indeed just a “next step” along a leftward progression set decades ago. Liberal Protestantism long ago grew embarrassed by the exclusive claims of biblical Christianity and the historic Christian faith. Adopting pluralist and inclusivist reconstructions of the faith, liberal theologians and theological schools have been pressing the margins for over a century now. Given that trajectory, a multifaith theological seminary was an inevitability — the only question was when and where it would happen.

Read the entire article HERE.

The Gospel VS. The Implications of the Gospel

Okay, I know that some of you can't stand Glenn Beck. Actually, I have never watched his program and have only caught snippets of his radio show. While I am a conservative I do find Glenn to be a bit over earnest. Also, Glenn Beck is a Mormon which means he desperately needs Jesus and ought to be the object of our prayers.

That said, I am very thankful that Glenn Beck encountered Dr. Peter Lillback's monumental book George Washington's Sacred Fire. It is an impressive tome by almost any standard. It is, in my mind, a model of thorough historical scholarship. So now, this once fairly obscure book has received national attention and has soared to the top of Amazon's sales. What is more, last evening Dr. Lillback appeared on Glen Beck's program on Fox News to discuss the issue of "social justice." I am happy to say that Dr. Lillback made the Gospel of Jesus clear and also made the essential distinction between the Gospel and the implications of the Gospel.

The Gospel, which is the message of Christ's sacrificial death and victorious resurrection, must NOT be confused with the implications of the Gospel. The Gospel the announcement of what God has done in Christ to reconcile sinners to himself. Period. It is all promise. The Gospel is not command. The Gospel is not our good works. The Gospel is not our helping the poor. The Gospel is not our sexual ethics. The Gospel is not our feeding the hungry. These are certainly implications of the Gospel. But if we mix into the Gospel those things that the gospel produces then we adulterate the very heart of Christianity. We turn grace into law and we lose the good news itself. If you are not sure whether or not that is a big deal then read Galatians.

"Preachers Who Do Not Believe"

Al Mohler comments on a fascinating, if not disheartening new study released by Tufts University. The name of the study is entitled "Preachers Who Do Not Believe." The title is self-explanatory. One of the authors of the study is the well known atheist Daniel Dennett. I do not believe that Dr. Dennett is a disinterested or impartial observer of the data. He is among the new school of aggressive atheists who believe religious faith is not only specious but potentially dangerous. That said, the study ought to concern those of us who love God and His church.

Dennett and LaScola undertook their project with the goal of looking for unbelieving pastors and ministers who continue to serve their churches in "secret disbelief." Their "small and self-selected" sample of ministers represents a microcosm of the theological collapse at the heart of many churches and denominations.

In their report, Dennett and LaScola present case studies of five unbelieving ministers, three from liberal denominations ("the liberals") and two from conservative denominations ("the literals").

Ironically, Dennett the atheist has a better grasp of the nature of theological liberalism than do many professing evangelicals.

Interestingly, Dennett also proposes a new interpretation of theological liberalism. Noting that many modern people claim to be Christians while holding to virtually no specific theological content, Dennett suggests that their mode of faith should not be described as "belief," but rather as "believing in belief."

Another portion of Mohler's post struck me as especially important for the church. It is a reminder that clear definitions and boundaries in all things doctrinal are vital.

Early in their report, Dennett and LaScola point to a problem of definition. Many churches and denominations have adopted such fluid and doctrineless identities that determining who is a believer and who is an unbeliever has become difficult. Their statement deserves a close reading:

The ambiguity about who is a believer and who is an unbeliever follows inexorably from the pluralism that has been assiduously fostered by many religious leaders for a century and more: God is many different things to different people, and since we can't know if one of these conceptions is the right one, we should honor them all. This counsel of tolerance creates a gentle fog that shrouds the question of belief in God in so much indeterminacy that if asked whether they believed in God, many people could sincerely say that they don't know what they are being asked.

In other words, some theologians and denominations have embraced a theology so fluid and indeterminate that even an atheist cannot tell the believers and unbelievers apart.

"Preachers Who Are Not Believers" is a stunning and revealing report that lays bare a level of heresy, apostasy, and hypocrisy that staggers the mind. In 1739, Gilbert Tennett preached his famous sermon, "On the Danger of an Unconverted Ministry." In that sermon, Tennett described unbelieving pastors as a curse upon the church. They prey upon the faith and the faithful. "These caterpillars labor to devour every green thing."

I would add that these "caterpillars" are not found only in the church. They can be found in many seminaries and so-called Christian colleges and universities. I know what it is to sit with students and graduates of Christian universities who no longer believe because a Bible professor convinced them that they could not rely on the accuracy of the Scriptures. I was told once by a now unbelieving young graduate, "Todd, if I cannot believe what the Bible says in the Old Testament then how can I believe what it says about Jesus?" Indeed.

Read Mohler's entire article HERE.

Carl Trueman on the decline of mainline Protestantism

Check out this interview with Carl Trueman on the Janet Mefferd Show. Dr. Trueman is Professor of Historical Theology and Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary.

It is an important reminder of the high price of compromise.

Panel Discussion of McLaren's new book

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary held a panel discussion on Brian McLaren's newest book A New Kind of Christianity. The discussion was hosted by Al Mohler and featured several SBTS faculty members.

Watch the video HERE.

Listen to the audio HERE.

A heretic by any other name (8)...

Mike Witmer next deals with questions 8 and 9 of Brian McLaren's new book:

8) “Can we find a better way of viewing the future?”

9) “How should followers of Jesus relate to people of other religions?”

These two questions feed one another, and for time’s sake I will take them together. Brian’s “participatory eschatology” seems to be a version of postmillennialism. He criticizes postmillennialism for its “triumphalistic determinism” but thinks that the kingdom will ultimately “spread its influence gradually” as we labor on its behalf.

More interesting is Brian’s vision of the end, which he calls “un-doomed.” Unlike the traditional Christian view which asserts that God will determine the final destiny of the saved and the damned at the last judgment, Brian seems to hold to a universalism in which God’s grace does not relent until everyone ultimately is reconciled to him and to each other.

Brian says that the last judgment “is not merely retributive” but is “reconciling and restoring.” It “will not involve God…pulling down our pants to check for circumcision or scanning our brains for certain beliefs…. No, God will examine the story of our lives for signs of Christlikeness—for a cup of cold water or a plate of hot food given to one in need, for an atom of mercy shown to one who has been unkind or unthoughtful… These are the parts of a person’s life that will be deemed worthy of being saved, remembered, rewarded, and raised for a new beginning. All the unloving, unjust, non-Christlike parts of our lives…will be burned away, counted as unworthy, condemned (which means acknowledged for what they are), and forgotten forever.”

It’s not clear whether Brian sees the afterlife as a series of chances to repent until everyone comes around or whether everyone immediately endures a fiery judgment which burns away their bad stuff and preserves whatever remains. Either way, what’s left of us is ultimately reconciled, or perhaps absorbed into God (depending on whether Brian is a panentheist).

If everyone’s destiny is the same, then it follows that the last thing Brian thinks we should do is tell other religions that they are wrong. He says that we should not “insult other religions” by desiring that “all other religions would be abolished and only our own remain.” We must “learn to discover God in the other” in order to “discover a bigger ‘us,’ in which people of all faiths can be included.” Evangelism would then “cease to be a matter of saving souls from a bad ending” but instead “would invite people into lifelong spiritual formation as disciples of Jesus, in a community dedicated (as we’ve seen) to teaching the most excellent way of love, whatever the new disciple’s religious affiliation or lack thereof.” “This kind of evangelism would…[call] people to a way of life in a kingdom (or beautiful whole) that transcends and includes all religions.”

My initial thought is that it would be difficult to square this view with God’s command to Israel to destroy the idols of the false religions. Brian would probably respond that this is an immature OT God who is inferior to Jesus. But what about Jesus’ words in John 14:6? Brian knows that he must address this verse, and he spends seven pages telling us that this verse does not mean what we think. Apparently Jesus is not telling his disciples that he is the only way to the Father and everlasting life, but rather that none of them “can get to God or the kingdom of God on their own,” which is “not about the afterlife” but about how Jesus will live with them in a new way after his death. I’m sorry if that doesn’t make a lot of sense. I found Brian’s argument convoluted and at more than seven pages, working a little too hard to be taken seriously. Suffice to say that he thinks the traditional view of John 14:6 is a little too Greco and a little too Roman.

I think by now you can guess what I think of these chapters, so here’s an alternate experiment to try. Take Brian’s beliefs about the afterlife and other religions and see if they can make sense of the book of Acts. Look at what Paul said and did on his missionary journeys. Is it remotely plausible that Paul held anything like Brian’s views?

McLarenism VS. Christianity

Some of you may be wondering why I am dedicating so many posts to Brian McLaren's new book. The reason is two-fold. First it is important to confront those who call themselves Christians but trash God and His Word. Secondly, Brian McLaren is one of the most influential "evangelicals" (according to Time). Therefore, Brian is influencing a lot of Christians. He is a classic wolf in sheep's clothing and the Bible is not agnostic about how those who lead God's people astray ought to be dealt with.

When you get a chance read Kevin DeYoung's excellent review of A New Kind of Christianity.

I do not write these words carelessly but I do not know any other conclusion but that McLaren is an apostate. What else can we conclude about one who writes that the God revealed in Scripture is "an idol, a damnable idol"? (p. 65).

A heretic by any other name (7)...

In question seven of A New Kind of Christianity, Brian McLaren turns his attention to the issue of sexuality. Of course, by this time it should be no surprise that Brian approves of homosexuality and thinks it's high time the church made peace with homosexuality as well. After all, those bits of Scripture that clearly forbid and condemn homosexuality are among the homophobic, retrograde, and just plain untrue parts of the Bible (and Brian loves the Bible).

Mike Witmer sums up Brian's points:

1. Male and female is a dualism which goes back to Plato, so if you oppose homosexual practice you are being Platonic. In Brian’s words, you are endorsing “the Platonic dualisms in which maleness and femaleness are two absolute, eternal categories of being into which all people fit.”

I covered this in an earlier post (“Interlude”), but let me say again that not all dualisms are Platonic and not all dualisms are wrong. Brian’s argument is also strange from a historical perspective, as Plato himself might have been gay. Plato said that you might remember the form of beauty when you look at a naked boy—an unfortunate statement which would have landed Plato on my state’s sex offender list.

2. Our experience should trump the authority of Scripture. He writes that “If a Christian today experiences gay friends, neighbors, colleagues, or relatives as healthy, sincere, and morally equal” then we must not “marginalize and discredit this experience” just because we think the Bible tells us “that they are rebellious and dangerous sinners, a twisted abomination, a…moral aberrance.”

Here I would appeal to Luther’s theology of the cross, which aptly reminds us to allow the Word of God to interpret what we see rather than the other way around. Brian is reading his Bible and experience from the wrong direction.

3. It is unchristian to say that homosexual practice is wrong for then we are condemning gays “simply for being who they are.”

I address this in chapter 5 of Don’t Stop Believing, so I’ll just say here that we must not allow homosexuals to define themselves by their homosexuality. They are essentially the image of God, not gay. We are actually defending who they are when we say that homosexual practice is not how an image bearer of God should behave. This may be difficult for some to hear, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t humbly and lovingly say it.

4. Brian says that “God demonstrates supreme solidarity…with the ones who are rejected and excluded…with the ones who are humiliated and shamed.” So we who “cast the first stone at the ‘sexually other’” are throwing rocks at God. Got it?

5. Biblically, if God accepted the Ethiopian eunuch (a marginalized sexual other) then we can expect God to be okay with other forms of sexual otherness, including homosexual practice.

Observe that Brian conflates loving a person and accepting what they do, as if bringing the gospel to a eunuch or homosexual connotes acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle. He also equates being a eunuch, which is a non-moral issue, with homosexual practice, which is a decidedly moral one.

6. Rather than criticize homosexual practice we should be thanking gay people, for “By coming out of the closet regarding their homosexuality, gay folks may help the rest of us come out of the closet regarding our sexuality” (emphasis his).

Read the entire post HERE.

A heretic by any other name (6)...

"What do we do about the church?" That is the sixth question Brian McLaren deals with in his new book. Of course now that Brian has rejected the authority and reliability of Scripture, the biblical vision of God, the doctrines of sin and the atonement, and has redefined the gospel it leaves one wondering why he is interested at all in the church. Nevertheless, he pushes on. Mike Witmer soldiers on as well in what has surely been an unpleasant task.

Brian’s shallow evaluation of our problem (no Fall, original sin, total depravity, or hell) produces a shallow understanding of salvation (love as much as you can and let God’s judgment burn your bad stuff away) which produces a shallow view of the church (it exists merely to stop people from wasting their lives).

But we already have that job covered. Several institutions already exist to stop people from wasting their lives. Colleges prepare people for life, the Army challenges them to “Be all they can be,” and the Peace Corps provides an outlet to serve others. So given Brian’s description of the church’s mission, why do we even need it? Hasn’t his quest to make the church relevant merely succeeded in making it redundant?

Tim Challies has written a review of A New Kind of Christianity and he pulls no punches. Tim is a nice guy but he recognizes that McLaren's reckless deconstruction of biblical faith combined with his unfortunate influence among evangelicals deserves a strong response.

The arrogance of it all is stunning. McLaren is angrier than he has been before and more scornful. Still, though, he presents his ideas coated with the veneer of a false humility. But, handily, he builds into the book the means he will use to answer his critics. He will simply accuse his detractors of having this old Greco-Roman understanding of the faith. We poor fundamentalists cannot be among the new kind of Christian until we have been enlightened to understand the Bible through an entirely new narrative structure. Only then will this all become clear. Until then, more to be pitied are we than any men.

Here, in A New Kind of Christianity it’s as if McLaren is screaming “I hate God!” at the top of his lungs. And swarms of Christians are looking at him with admiration and saying, “See how that guy loves God?” I don’t know what McLaren could do to make the situation more clear. In fact, his book is nearly indistinguishable from many of the de-conversion narratives that are all the rage today. Compare it with Bart Ehrman’s God’s Problem and you’ll see many of the same arguments and the same misgivings; you’ll find, though, that Ehrman is at least more honest. He at least has the integrity to walk away from faith altogether rather than reinventing God in his own image.

McLaren says he would prefer atheism over belief in the God so many of us see in Scripture. Well, he is not far off. This new kind of Extreme Makeover: God Edition Christianity is no Christianity at all. It is not a faith made in the image of Jesus Christ, but a faith made in the image of a man who despises God and who is hell-bent on dragging others along with him as he becomes his own god.

A Heretic by any other name (5)...

In his continuing review and interaction with Brian McLaren's new book Mike Witmer addresses the fifth of McLaren's questions: "What is the Gospel?" Since Brian rejects the biblical doctrines of the fall and sin he is also doomed to distort the gospel which he does with breathtaking hubris.

The gospel, according to McLaren, is not the announcement of salvation through Jesus' atoning work (McLaren rejects the doctrine of the atonement). Instead the gospel, so says McLaren, is a new way of life; a life of love. Well, I certainly will not argue that the Gospel, properly believed and apprehended by faith will lead to love for God and neighbor. But what Brian does is what theological liberals have always done. He abandons the substance of the gospel for the fruits of the gospel. In other words he denies what the gospel is and replaces it with one aspect of what the gospel produces within those who believe - a life of love.

Witmer addresses this issue in two posts (Here and Here).

In this section Brian reveals how liberalism grows in orthodox churches. He says that at the beginning of their movement, he and his friends were “peace-loving people” who didn’t “want to needlessly upset anyone,” so they thought, ‘Maybe this new understanding can simply be added to what we already have, gradually, gently, so people won’t even notice…Maybe we can simply add this kingdom-of-God stuff as fine print on the bottom of our existing theological contracts…without upsetting anyone.”

Brian writes that “Many are still working with this hope, and I wish them luck”—which should be a wake-up call to us all. Brian says that for his part he can no longer pretend, for “the cat is out of the bag” and it’s time to be honest about his new Christianity and admit that it can’t be crammed into the traditional way the church has believed in God...

Here’s the lesson: the easiest time to stop liberal theology is before it flowers and gains a following. If we make room for liberal questions it won’t be long before we’ll be asked to tolerate liberal answers. The little bit of liberalism that we tolerate today will eventually grow to become the dominant view. At least that’s the plan, according to Brian. We’ve been warned.

Postscript: some have asked why my reviews of A New Kind of Christianity have been critical. Isn’t there something positive to say about it? That’s a bit like asking, “Otherwise, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?” or “C’mon Paul, the Judaizers got something right, didn’t they?” (If you want to see negative, read Galatians 1, 1 Timothy 1, or anything in Jude).

Brian does rightly remind us to love each other, but this salient point is overwhelmed by his deconstruction of the Christian faith. As an evangelical elder statesman shared with me yesterday, “Brian fails every one of Machen’s tests.” This is my point in chapter 12 of Don’t Stop Believing, but you can see for yourself. Pick up a copy of Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism, written in 1923, and you’ll see that what Brian is saying isn’t exactly new, and according to Machen, it isn’t even Christian.