The Emergent Alan Alda
I decided to do some more reading up on some of the new crazes sweeping the Church world today. And of course reading Gina's blog got me interested in Brian Mclaren, and this huge Universal Salvation fad (heresy) that seems to be sweeping the Church world today.
As my best friend Stan loves to call it "Attack of the Unitarians", or "Revenge of the Unitarians" (that Unitarianism has basically co-opted the liberal evangelical movement).
Anyway in doing so, it reminded me of yet another gripe. Also something before discussed with the GF. Namely Getting a straight answer from this guy!
I mean sheesh I've never seen a person waffle on an issue, give "non-answers", or give huge answers filled with a host qualifiers so much that you almost forget the original question... than this guy does. It really reminds me of the Alan Alda, sensitive guy thing of the seventies. Which is another aspect of persona that he really seems to give off. I actually think that is one of the big reasons for the run around. Because of notions of 1970's compassion and sensitivity.
Of course being so on this extreme really means he cannot take any real side on an issue. Even if an issue is a trurely important one. Furthermore, some of his followers do the same mealy mouth crap. I recall a number of months ago. A young woman was seriously considering joining a "Christian Wiccan group" (A group that deliberately mixes Christianity with Celtic pagan practices).
As folks might guess that know me, being the fire breathing dragon of Orthodoxy, I was very much openly against it. And for many, detailed reasons given on that chat thread. There however was a minister who was a Brian fan who basically rebuked me for how close minded I was. I however unduanted turned the tables on him. And proceeded to question him. Because in rebuking me, he actually seemed to be giving a kind of passive support for such New Ageness. And I wanted to know for the record if that was true. Did he support or think was acceptable, or ok, to be mixing Christian services with occult rituals.
After being poked many times with sharp pointy head sticks. I finally got him to respond that "No I would not support such a thing. I would advise for people to stay away from the Occult"
But let me tell you it took a lot of prodding.
And that is the exact problem going on in Emergent Evangelism today. It's the old cliche of "being so open minded that your brains have fallen out". The only times these people really speak out is on politically safe, liberal subjects.
Anti-Bush, War in Iraq, the cost of medical care is to high.... That sort of thing. But if it comes to other things like the importance of the Virgin Birth in our understanding of Jesus as Messiah and God incarnate. Well on those issues they may have the same back bone of a Jelly Fish.
I decided to do some more reading up on some of the new crazes sweeping the Church world today. And of course reading Gina's blog got me interested in Brian Mclaren, and this huge Universal Salvation fad (heresy) that seems to be sweeping the Church world today.
As my best friend Stan loves to call it "Attack of the Unitarians", or "Revenge of the Unitarians" (that Unitarianism has basically co-opted the liberal evangelical movement).
Anyway in doing so, it reminded me of yet another gripe. Also something before discussed with the GF. Namely Getting a straight answer from this guy!
I mean sheesh I've never seen a person waffle on an issue, give "non-answers", or give huge answers filled with a host qualifiers so much that you almost forget the original question... than this guy does. It really reminds me of the Alan Alda, sensitive guy thing of the seventies. Which is another aspect of persona that he really seems to give off. I actually think that is one of the big reasons for the run around. Because of notions of 1970's compassion and sensitivity.
Of course being so on this extreme really means he cannot take any real side on an issue. Even if an issue is a trurely important one. Furthermore, some of his followers do the same mealy mouth crap. I recall a number of months ago. A young woman was seriously considering joining a "Christian Wiccan group" (A group that deliberately mixes Christianity with Celtic pagan practices).
As folks might guess that know me, being the fire breathing dragon of Orthodoxy, I was very much openly against it. And for many, detailed reasons given on that chat thread. There however was a minister who was a Brian fan who basically rebuked me for how close minded I was. I however unduanted turned the tables on him. And proceeded to question him. Because in rebuking me, he actually seemed to be giving a kind of passive support for such New Ageness. And I wanted to know for the record if that was true. Did he support or think was acceptable, or ok, to be mixing Christian services with occult rituals.
After being poked many times with sharp pointy head sticks. I finally got him to respond that "No I would not support such a thing. I would advise for people to stay away from the Occult"
But let me tell you it took a lot of prodding.
And that is the exact problem going on in Emergent Evangelism today. It's the old cliche of "being so open minded that your brains have fallen out". The only times these people really speak out is on politically safe, liberal subjects.
Anti-Bush, War in Iraq, the cost of medical care is to high.... That sort of thing. But if it comes to other things like the importance of the Virgin Birth in our understanding of Jesus as Messiah and God incarnate. Well on those issues they may have the same back bone of a Jelly Fish.
posted by Addai | 11:19 AM
13 Comments:
"being so open minded that your brains have fallen out"
lol... nice. So, I'm confused (anticedent trouble). The guy you can't get a straight answer from... is that McLaren you were talking about?
give "non-answers", or give huge answers filled with a host qualifiers so much that you almost forget the original question
This is now an art form. It should likely get worse, considering all of the 'tolerance' we must endure because at least two generations of people have now refused to grow up/suck it up. Unfortunately, I have the 'mealy mouth crap' tendency myself... but only because I'm new! :)
Yeah he gives politician style answers. Where in the words of Bill Oreilly he "dances" around the issue (His response regarding Chrisitanity and homosexuality was really one of those moments, were he said something like how his "heart breaks that he can't really answer that question without offending someone".
Here's one of his last statements. In some ways it's entirely bad (he hates some of the reductionism that can be apart of Protestant theology and can actually be thinking somewhat along Orthodox lines.
http://www.anewkindofchristian.com/archives/000020.html
My problem is that sometimes there is a lot evasiveness. And it is done in the name of compassion. And there can be a lot of openmindedness on Nicene-ish issues, all done for seeker sensitive reasons.
A good example of that was to something I alluded to earlier. An oozer Polycarp (A friend of Brian's) was questioned from a extreme liberal christian. Who asked us in her thread a few years back. "Would I be welcome becoming a member of your church if I didn't believe in the Virgin Birth?"
I was the first person to answer that thread, being "Jonny on the Spot". And I explained the importance of the virgin birth to some basic Christian doctrines. Jesus being the Messiah, savior from Sin, and God incarante and how his birth is tied up with his identity, and the doctrines that are at the core of Christianity. And how we can't really remove that doctrine. Because that is just the thing that the Pharisees, Saduccees, Gnostics and other did. You attack some of the supporting beliefs to undermine the other related doctrines (So the Jews for instance tried to discredit his claim as messiah etc. by saying Mary was not only, not a virgin. But she was living in sin with a Roman centurion. etc.)
Anyway when talking to this woman. It turned out (As I sort of suspected), that yes, she didnot believe these other major doctrines of Chrisitanity. That Jesus was born without sin, he died for our sins, and that He is God incarnate.
She is, what I sort of expected, probably one of these Jesus Seminar folks.
Anyway after I explained to her how it would not profit her going to my church. And any church I would be a member of even back to my Protestant days (Where we believed people had to agree to a minimum set of doctines to be part of the community).
Then Poly showed up. And talked about he talked about this issue with his congregation (and I think also with brian). And they decided to not make this "an issue". Things of this nature could be decided for each faith community for themselves. So as not to discourage any seekers out there. Which is really backwards. As in the Ecclesia is "The Body", it a body of believers. People who have already signed on. And if anything are being "discipled". Letting anybody join, then voting on what you believe is the path to Unitarianism, or worse...
This kind of thinking boggles my mind. But even a few emergents who I respect, have had some thoughts along this lines (being extremely seeker sensitive to the point of whatering down what you profess to not be too pushy). It's funny they actually have forgot some of the basics of even the previous Church growth movements (That people actually like a church that is conservative and very forth right about what it believes and teaches. And the growth rate of conservative churches that have just a little savviness when dealing with visitors is actually quite high)
PJ actually had a great quote regarding McLaren et al: "You've got these great leaders in the EC movement who have succumbed to the market driven forces and are getting rich off old ideas cast away by Christianity centuries ago." Commenting that he believes McLaren's new book, judging from interviews, will be gnosticism rehashed.
P,
Thanks for the rundown!
G,
...gnosticism rehashed
You mentioned something the other day about McLaren and universalism. Can you expand on that a bit?
Well I was the first one to say "it sounds like gnosticism". Based literally on the appearance of the title.
"The Secret Message of Jesus"
and on the cover jacket there is a sub title caption that says "Uncovering the Truth that can change everything"
So to tell ya, what does that sound to you? I will however glance at threads about the book. But at the very least he seems to be using the famous marketing firm Sensationalist Gnostic Publications Inc, to do his book packaging and marketing (using lots of gnostic sounding buzz words to hieghten the sense of novelty).
Two words brother: P. R. May as well maximize profits while believing one's own propoganda.
Yes sweets, PJ credited you as being "pretty smart." :)
Jim, check out this podcast interview. I don't listen to such things, so I'm not sure exactly what McLaren said, except that he asks the question "If hell is real, is the message of the cross false advertising?"- a question that doesn't make a bit of sense to me, try as I might. And, a lot of his devotees somehow end up universalists.
Podcast interview
It would be interesting to know what he means.
I can see that going in both a heretical and EO direction.
If "real" is talking about a literal fiery place of doom, in reference to previous discussions about heaven and hell being places rather than "states of being".
Of course as I like to point out. Even if you have a more metaphorical view of hell, which Orthodoxy does. The torment and pain is still "real". So I would not use that kind of wording to describe it, it's just to easily misunderstood as meaning you don't think the question of the afterlife is to important, or everybody is saved or some other bad idea.
You're going to make me listen to him!?!?! :) thanks for answering. About the Hell thing, good points P.
Well I listened to 10-12 minutes for the second cast with Stan as he struggled to stay awake. On the second interview (Which they said you should skip too if your short on time.).
And I think Stan said it best "I've heard enough. It's Theosophistic mumbo jumbo".
I will try to go back and listen to the entire broadcast, assuming I'm really interested in "Dialoguing with the Brianites".
But I gotta say, the things I said, so far as far as Alan Adla-ishness really seem apt!
What does Stan mean by theosophistic?
Oops I meant to say "Sophistic Mumbo Jumbo". Since Theosophy is actually an occult metaphysical philosophy.
By the way, I'm forcing myself to listen to both broadcasts. I finished the first one, and am actually going to listen to the second one.
I'm only doing so really because if I talk more on the thread, and with them in the future. The usual rebuttal is to say "How much do you know about Brian? Have you read any of his books?" And so on.
So I figure if am going to be a critic, "I need to pay my dues".
Interesting conversation folks. This is Leif Hansen, from the Bleeding Purple Podcast interview with Brian Mclaren. There are quite a few things I could address as out of context, misunderstandings, exagerations, etc...but I think the main point to address is this...and its one I think that those who hold to ECT (eternal concious torment --in whatever form) need to really grapple with:
Christ teaches us in word and deed (the cross) to forgive 7*70, to love our enemies, to turn the other cheeck --basically self-sacrifical love. The cross is the 'exclamation point' of this message, if you will.
So the point of false advertising is this --if thats the message, the advertising --ECT teaches the exact opposite --torment (or allow to be tormented) your enemies, execute vengeance on them, and do not suffer on their behalf.
Infinite pain for finite sin.
Not justice.
Not love.
Not true.
-leif
Post a Comment
<< Home