What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology?

What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Church

[Poll]

Too Liberal

11% (2)

Too Conservative

0% (0)

Straight up Heresy

77% (14)

I like it but won't tell my friends

11% (2)

Total Votes : 18

(last vote on : 8/11/2008 4:17:24 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

justiceyeti -> What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? (8/8/2008 6:43:53 PM)
Im a Catholic, so I don't drift over to the evangelical scene that much. Brian Mclaren though seems to have a lot of people following his ideas and concepts. Through my conversations, an evangelical friend of mine explained that he is part of the "emerging church", I don't know if that is a denomination or not. Long story short I found this podcast where he talked about having a "generous orthodoxy" rather then just trying to convince people you're right. My understanding of it is he's not talking about relativism but rather a concept of being generous when discussing theology. Like how Catholics have a hermeneutic of generosity (interpret what someone has said in the best light possible). Anyways I think some of his ideas are interesting. http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/M...t?id=286366987 Its the second episode, Living a Generous Orthodoxy with Brian Mclaren

LCannon -> RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? (8/8/2008 7:20:07 PM)
"...The emergent movement has no answers. McLaren attributes this position to humility. "A generous orthodoxy," he explains, "in contrast to the tense, narrow, controlling, or critical orthodoxies of so much of Christian history, doesn't take itself too seriously. It is humble; it doesn't claim too much; it admits it walks with a limp....This position is an answer in itself. Rather than responding to the questions of our age, McLaren responds with a soft ecumenicalism and a shrug of the shoulders." Admittedly, I haven't heard of him or his 'emergent movement' but it seems to be me he's trying too hard to accommodate thus blur the sharp distinction into a soft humility.

Pat-rebel_lady -> RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? (8/8/2008 7:58:50 PM)
I couldn't answer your Poll, none seemed to apply to me at this point in time. I never heard of Brian D. McLaren until his book 'A New Kind of Christian' was recommended reading by one of my long long time trusted Bible Teachers. I got the book read it, and am still in a state of shell-shock (for lack of another unknown word to use); I'm still trying to absorb and process half of it --- the other half I already agreed with and believed. This is the first mention of Brian D. McLaren I've seen in these threads, and I have yet to see any mention of the above book yet. In all honesty I was surprised to find this much.

Kath -> RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? (8/8/2008 11:55:45 PM)
moving from General Faith to The Church

FurGodWurLivin -> RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? (8/9/2008 4:26:19 AM)
Personally, I find the entire Emergent Movement is a little post-modern to be viable as doctrine... In fact, it isn't so much a theology as it is a lack of one. Adam

rcjames -> RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? (8/9/2008 9:38:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FurGodWurLivin Personally, I find the entire Emergent Movement is a little post-modern to be viable as doctrine... In fact, it isn't so much a theology as it is a lack of one. Adam Excellent point Adam; I might call the Emergent doctrine "the Bloviation Doctrine" (All hot air and no substance). Or as someone put in a thread a wihile back, "Getting a hold of their doctrine is like trying to nail jell-o to the wall. Thanks RC

stephanos -> RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? (8/9/2008 10:20:32 AM)
Seeing as McLaren minimizes if not out right ignores/denies the Substitutionary Atonement of Christ Jesus, I would say stay away, stay FAR away.

earthless -> RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? (8/9/2008 10:22:54 AM)
If you're an adherent of the belief system of Oprah.. then have fun.

mushhead -> RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? (8/10/2008 3:26:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: justiceyeti Im a Catholic, so I don't drift over to the evangelical scene that much. Brian Mclaren though seems to have a lot of people following his ideas and concepts. Through my conversations, an evangelical friend of mine explained that he is part of the "emerging church", I don't know if that is a denomination or not. Long story short I found this podcast where he talked about having a "generous orthodoxy" rather then just trying to convince people you're right. My understanding of it is he's not talking about relativism but rather a concept of being generous when discussing theology. Like how Catholics have a hermeneutic of generosity (interpret what someone has said in the best light possible). Anyways I think some of his ideas are interesting. quote: ORIGINAL: Pat-rebel_lady I couldn't answer your Poll, none seemed to apply to me at this point in time. I never heard of Brian D. McLaren until his book 'A New Kind of Christian' was recommended reading by one of my long long time trusted Bible Teachers. I got the book read it, and am still in a state of shell-shock (for lack of another unknown word to use); I'm still trying to absorb and process half of it --- the other half I already agreed with and believed. This is the first mention of Brian D. McLaren I've seen in these threads, and I have yet to see any mention of the above book yet. In all honesty I was surprised to find this much. I voted "too liberal" only because I overlooked the option "outright heresy." I have read both "A Generous Orthodoxy" and "A New Kind of Christian" (ANKoC) as well another of McLaren's books titled, "The Secret Message of Jesus." All three of these books have basically the same message: 1-Conservative (evangelical) Christianity is a misguided form of Christianity that seeks to "build walls between it and the rest of society; that is consumeristic; insists on doctrinal purity, but is not at all concerned with "changed lives;" doesn't understand the purpose of Scripture; is the enemy of the gospel; is not interested in justice, mercy, or compassion. Christianity is responsible for the Holocaust. (These are just a few examples of an all out assault on evangelicalism that is part of each of McLaren's three books that I read. This assault is really apparent in "A Generous Orthodoxy" as the entire point of the book is to offer a new doctrine that leads to a more generous style of Christianity. He unapologetically claims that the bad behavior he cites is not due to evangelicals (conservatives) disobeying Scripture; instead the behavior is a natural result of evangelical fidelity to their interpretation of Scripture. To make his case, McLaren had to demonstrate how historical orthodoxy was bad. The trouble is that McLaren cites the worst examples of Christian behavior and motivation as if it is representative of all evangelicals. He also portrays some Christian personalities, i.e. James Dobson, as hate mongers who attempt to scare people into financially supporting their ministries with doomsday predictions about such topics as homosexual marriage.) 3-teaches that hell does not really exist 4-The descriptions of heaven in the Book of Revelation are not literal. 5-God allows all people into heaven; the only difference between people that want to be there and those that don't is those who don't be will be unhappy. 6-Being good is more important than what one believes 7-All religions are good. 8-Jesus is the only "way of Salvation." 9-Salvation is not obtained through Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection; instead Jesus is the "Way" because He alone perfectly demonstrated how God oringinally intended humanity to treat one another, govern one another, ect. 10- Everyone that commits themselves to pursuing justice, mercy, and love for their fellow man; thereby seeking to eradicate injustice in the world is a disciple of Jesus regardless what they believe or which religion they practice. 11-People are also saved when they are delivered from injustice. Numbers 9-11 describe what McLaren means by his frequent references to God's desire to save or redeem all of society and the whole world. 12-It is possible to hear the gospel, not believe, thus rejecting Jesus, and still be saved. I don't see anything humble, generous, or loving in a person that slanders, defames, and outright lies about the beliefs and practices of millions of committed Christians, just so he can convince people to believe his doctrines. Finally, just because McLaren claims that he is not teaching relativism, does not make it so. The following is a quote from "A Generous Orthodoxy" in which McLaren directly addresses the relativism charge: quote: "But please understand: That's not what I'm talking about, not at all! I know it might appear to be so because I and others, while we aren't "for" pluralistic relativism, do see it as a kind of needed chemotherapy...Emergent Christians see pluralistic relativism as a dangerous treatment for Stage 4 absolutist/colonial/totalitarian modernity (to use language from cancer diagnosis), something that saves a life by nearly killing it. It's dangerous medicine - but stagnancy, getting stuck too long in the cocoon, is dangerous too." (pg. 325) Notice that McLaren addresses the charge that he is relativist by saying that he is not for relativism. Then in the very next sentence he admits that relativistim is a needed, but dangerous treatment for evangelical doctrine (McLaren uses the terms "evangelical," "modern," and "conservative" interchangeably). This, near the end of his book that was written to offer an alternative to conservative Christianity (didn't he say that relativism was a necessary, but dangerous, alternative (treatment) to doctrinal conservativism) In other words, in the same breath that he denies being a relativist, he admits that his teachings are relativistic. How does he reconcile this obvious contradiction? Read the following explanation: quote: "In this chapter I am trying to make clear that I believe there is something above and beyond the current alternatives of modern fundamentalism/absolutism and pluralistic relativism. I know this is so hard to envision because I struggled to envision this myself for about ten years and have only begun in the last few years to see it, and even now, only faintly." (pg. 326) Is anyone getting what McLaren is saying here. The reality is that either absolute (thus universal) truths exist or they do not. If they do not, then individuals and social groups determine what truth for themselves (pluralistic relativism). McLaren is trying to prove that he is not a pluralistic relativist by saying that this is not an either/or issue; that a third option exists. What is this third option? He cannot answer that question because he doesn't know. All he can say is that he can sort of see it dimly, but he cannot describe it. In spite of the fact that all he can say is that he sees it fainlty, and cannot describe it in anyway, McLaren wants us to accept that this mysterious third option is a reality and explains why he is not a relativist. How gullible does he think we are? He is a relativst!

Pat-rebel_lady -> RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? (8/10/2008 8:50:30 AM)
I'm amazed that this was moved from 'General Faith' to here, when from what I've read on Brian Mclaren so far has been on 'Kingdom' Principles not 'Church' Principles. quote: ORIGINAL: justiceyeti Im a Catholic, so I don't drift over to the evangelical scene that much. Brian Mclaren though seems to have a lot of people following his ideas and concepts. Through my conversations, an evangelical friend of mine explained that he is part of the "emerging church", I don't know if that is a denomination or not. Long story short I found this podcast where he talked about having a "generous orthodoxy" rather then just trying to convince people you're right. My understanding of it is he's not talking about relativism but rather a concept of being generous when discussing theology. Like how Catholics have a hermeneutic of generosity (interpret what someone has said in the best light possible). Anyways I think some of his ideas are interesting. http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/M...t?id=286366987 Its the second episode, Living a Generous Orthodoxy with Brian Mclaren I couldn't get the link to work; can you give me a brief of what it says? quote: ORIGINAL: earthless If you're an adherent of the belief system of Oprah.. then have fun. As I was thinking on your post this morning this is what came to mind: Matthew 13 Read This Chapter 13:24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 13:25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 13:26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 13:27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?' 13:28 He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him, 'Do you want us then to go and gather them up?' 13:29 But he said, 'No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn." ' " Again, at this point in time for me, I think one of these is tares and the other wheat; it's interesting how the 'Modern Church' sees them as one and the same.

Pat-rebel_lady -> RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? (8/10/2008 9:00:12 AM)
P.S. I would be very tempted to check: 'I like it but won't tell my friends', but that's only because my friends have little to no concept of 'Kingdom' Principles; only denominational and 'Church' doctrine and dogma Principles; and they have, like too many, no place to put these things --- it will either mess-up their faith (they'll crash & burn) or they'll reject the good with the bad as being "too Liberal" or "Straight up Heresy". And that's my opinion FWIW.

Pat-rebel_lady -> RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? (8/10/2008 10:38:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mushhead Is anyone getting what McLaren is saying here. The reality is that either absolute (thus universal) truths exist or they do not. If they do not, then individuals and social groups determine what truth for themselves (pluralistic relativism). McLaren is trying to prove that he is not a pluralistic relativist by saying that this is not an either/or issue; that a third option exists. What is this third option? I get it! The third option is 'Kingdom' Principles. Have you read ' When Heaven Invades Earth' by Bill Johnson? There is much more to 'Kingdom' Principles then is found in this book, but as one Endorser wrote in part about the book: ".... Matthew 6:10: *"Your Kingdom come; Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven."* That's the cry at the heart of 'When Heaven Invades Earth'. While many in the Church are just marking time waiting to go to heaven, Bill's challenge is to bring heaven to earth---right now! It's a challenge we need to respond to with urgency. ....." This is 'Kingdom' Principles. Is the 'Church' important? Yes!! The Church is to RE-present God's Kingdom in the earth, that's it's number one job!! The Church is to 'Unite' God's people, not be equal with, take the place of or be above God's 'Kingdom'. I've said this several times before in these threads but no-one has yet to acknowledge the truth in it, none-the-less, it's worth repeating here: 24 thousand denominations Plus, WHY? Because we have centered on other things that has divided us. We are hopelessly divided as the body of Christ on the face of the earth. The only�The ONLY viable foundation for unity is The Kingdom of God. We have a common King, We have a common Savior; we may differ in details not essential to Salvation, but we can not differ on the Authority, Centrality, or Supremacy of �The Kingdom of God�. To fail to Seek and thus find The Kingdom of God is to settle for diminished power and deferred hope, with shallow and superficial solutions to our worst problems in the world today. You don�t see terrorism in its proper light; you don�t see democracy in its proper light; you don�t see anything in its proper light until you over-lay it with The Kingdom of God. That�s the reason He [Jesus] said, �Seek first The Kingdom of God...�, then I can give you these things; I can provide them for you; not only the necessities of life but all the other things as well. In view of the Kingdom, as I said at the beginning of this, such a failure will sure to result in confusion of relationships, and, dulled excitement; we resolve an eclipse sense of self-sufficient. The evident result in failing to see the Kingdom, is the mistake of identifying the Church with the Kingdom, and thus so perceive to mar the Church�s true purpose to: Re-Present the Kingdom. The response of failing to identify the sequence, of the Kingdom and the Church is to allow the Kingdom to become lesser and thus not of any importance and to recognize the Church as something it was never intended to be. When you make what it is, or try to make what it is, more than it is---you make it less than what it is. It [the Church] is a representative�., The Representative, on earth, duly authorized to represent The Kingdom, extend The Kingdom, and to give The Kingdom visibility in your life among other people. Matthew 24:12 and Revelation 2:4 say that because iniquity or lawlessness shall abound, our love for one another will grow cold. Moffatt�s translation says, �You have left your first love for one another.� This is not love for Christ, but for one another. God is trying to get us to a place where we are able to contribute to the building up of the body in love (Eph. 4:16). This is not what Christ does for us, but what we do for each other. It challenges us to love and support when all that is humanly created, man-made, and shakable is being revealed and shook to its very foundations.

facedown -> RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? (8/10/2008 12:59:08 PM)
stephanos i tend to stay away from folks who outright demand a penal substitutionary atonement (assuming you did, in fact mean "penal)....at least when these folks seem to ingore/deny other aspects of atonemet/reconcilliation. mushead "...i don't see anything humble...." maybe, but maybe not. look at what happens in these forums about folks that differ from the typical fundamental/evangelical stream - they end up being slandered/defamed/etc about. how very interesting....

mushhead -> RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? (8/10/2008 1:27:57 PM)
quote: The only�The ONLY viable foundation for unity is The Kingdom of God. We have a common King, We have a common Savior; we may differ in details not essential to Salvation, but we can not differ on the Authority, Centrality, or Supremacy of �The Kingdom of God�. Pat-rebel_lady, In priniciple I agree with virtually everything you said, but the issue isn't the Kingdom of God, it is the McLaren's attempt to redefine the "details essential to salvation."

mushhead -> RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? (8/10/2008 1:30:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: facedown mushead "...i don't see anything humble...." maybe, but maybe not. look at what happens in these forums about folks that differ from the typical fundamental/evangelical stream - they end up being slandered/defamed/etc about. how very interesting.... I'm sure some of that happens, but it does not justify McLaren doing the same; nor is it a defense of his unBiblical teachings.

facedown -> RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? (8/10/2008 2:22:22 PM)
mushead if that's true of mclaren, then it's true of all of us, no? - what's good for the goose is good for the gander - pull the log out prior to pulling specks - rend your heart there is so much effort in squandering for justification sometimes (we're all guilty of this at one point or another) that we often simply miss the point. of course, these observations don't take away the need or purpose for dialogue, but when it turns into "shut up and listen to me, because I'm right" then....it's no longer dialogue, but monologe

Pat-rebel_lady -> RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? (8/10/2008 2:30:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mushhead quote: The only�The ONLY viable foundation for unity is The Kingdom of God. We have a common King, We have a common Savior; we may differ in details not essential to Salvation, but we can not differ on the Authority, Centrality, or Supremacy of �The Kingdom of God�. Pat-rebel_lady, In priniciple I agree with virtually everything you said, but the issue isn't the Kingdom of God, it is the McLaren's attempt to redefine the "details essential to salvation." Can you give me examples of McLaren's attempt to redefine the "details essential to salvation"? As I said earlier: "I never heard of Brian D. McLaren until his book 'A New Kind of Christian' was recommended reading by one of my long long time trusted Bible Teacher". Now after 38 years of walking with and learning to trust this and other Teachers, in the Lord, who are in agreement [united] together, all from many different denominations, I don't take lightly a recommended reading. As I said, "I'm still trying to absorb and process half of it --- the other half I already agreed with and believed." But I haven't seen or noticed what you did in "his attempt to redefine the details essential to salvation"

jazzact13 -> RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? (8/10/2008 2:48:13 PM)
For an example of how McLaren has no interpretative method except to read into the Bible what he wants, take a look at this. quote: For Jesus, God's natural ecosystem is not only one of care, but also of limits. So when Jesus is tempted (Luke 4:1-3), he refuses to turn stones into bread (which would subvert God's natural system of provision), refuses to take a religious shortcut to authority and kingship (which would subvert God's natural system of gaining honor through humble service), and refuses to indulge in spectacle to prove himself (which would subvert Gods natural system of being proven through trials and experience). Brian McLaren, Everything Must Change, p. 139 Look up Luke 4, which has the account of Jesus' temptations, and please find where they mention anything that McLaren tries to make them mean. Even more so, take a look at this (part in parentheses added by me for clarity). quote: A shared reappraisal (with Islam, Hinduism, Buddism, and Judaism, and maybe others?) of Jesus' message could provide a unique space or common ground for urgently needed religious dialogue--and it doesn't seem an exaggeration to say that the future of the planet may depend on such a dialogue. Brian McLaren, The Secret Message of Jesus, p. 5 So, he advocates a "shared reappraisl...of Jesus' message" with religions that aren't even Christian, all of whom have false ideas about Christ and sin and salvation. Aren't we suppose to take the Gospel to them, not let them tell us what the Gospel is? McLaren has taken a flying cannonball into heresy, plain and simple.

Pat-rebel_lady -> RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? (8/10/2008 3:14:58 PM)
First let me say that for me, the only "details essential to salvation" is found here: Colossians 2:9-15 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. jazzact13, I'll consider your post and get back to you later, dh needs the computer and I need to start dinner prep.

earthless -> RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? (8/10/2008 5:36:01 PM)
facedown, Where do you draw the line? Here we have someone literally changing a core essential of Christianity. If we were to follow your logic, where do we draw the line? Sincerely asking. Do you then accept into the fold Mormons, JW's, etc?

facedown -> RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? (8/10/2008 6:25:35 PM)
earthless don't let dialogue turn into monologue and be very carefull about any discussion that turns into self-justification. what "core essential of christianity" are you directly referring to?

earthless -> RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? (8/10/2008 9:14:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: facedown earthless don't let dialogue turn into monologue It's a question regarding something you posted, can you please answer it? quote: ORIGINAL: facedown what "core essential of christianity" are you directly referring to? The ones you and others have repeatedly asked about and that I and others have repeatedly posted.

facedown -> RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? (8/11/2008 5:56:59 AM)
earthless "...it's a question regarding something you posted..." earlier you said "...where do you draw the line..." what, exactly are you referring to, so i can better answer it. the ones i have repeatedly asked about? hmmm, don't recall seeing that in any of my posts in this thread.

P31W -> RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? (8/11/2008 7:48:00 AM)
McLaren teaches false doctrine. He is leading people to hell with "his" theolody. McLaren "�My knowledge of Buddhism is rudimentary, but I have to tell you that much of what I understand strikes me as wonderful and insightful, and the same can be said of the teachings of Muhammad, though of course I have my disagreements. ... I�d have to say that the world is better off for having these religions than having no religions at all, or just one, even if it were ours. ... They aren�t the enemy of the gospel, in my mind...� (pp. 62, 63).

jazzact13 -> RE: What do you guys think of Brian Mclaren's Theology? (8/11/2008 7:49:51 AM)
quote: earthless "...it's a question regarding something you posted..." earlier you said "...where do you draw the line..." What does 'drawing the line' have to do with 'monologue'? Why don't you simply answer his question?

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>