This message starts as a typical emerging church talking head video (hip beat, open collar, unsteady camera and funky floating objects) which seem to be designed for ADD afflicted western Christians searching for meaning in their sea of meaninglessness.

He is quick to move onto his message which is to say that if we were all faithful Christians, Muslims and Jews we could create the Kingdom of God here and now. From his emergent church McLaren wants more than the Jesus Movement, he wants a revolution.

Thanks Johnny,

I saw these films in a postmodernism class at RTS. His understanding of the kingdom and it's coming in the "present age" seem to be about the same as postmillenialism in many regards.

He is correct that in Rome's perception Christians were "atheist." They were "atheist" in the sense they did not accept all the various gods of Rome related to emperor worship and religion for the "inclusivity" of Rome. Christians accepted Christ as "the only God" to Rome's ire...thus "atheist" of an indeed particular brand! Perhaps some similiarities to Babylon and the three young Jewish protestors as relelates to "inclusive religion" vs. one God?

An argument could be made that he is desirous of a neoreligious erupting world state occuring with the "correct understandings of the kingdom message" in the present age...could it not?

Perhaps he has an underdeveloped concept of the effects of sin and God's justice.

To me,his message seems to be towards "mystery" rather than clarity, preferring questions to direct answers.This of course appeals to many.

pat

Brian McLaren is one of a host of key "emergent movement" thinkers that has captured many in all churches, including Adventists. Bored and tired with conventional Protestantism especially, these captivating leaders appeal to those who want something better. But the allure is nothing new: the appeal to emotional satisfaction no longer burdened by the authority of time-tested, biblical principles. There is no limit to a tsunami of new levels of feeling, free from the restraint of spiritual authority. We call it New Spirituality, not necessarily Spiritualism. The "emergent mmovement" is not a passing fad--its appeal for those seeking the kingdom of God on earth is bewitching. It never comes with its cards all on the table. The only defense, it seems to me, is a fresh understanding of what the "everlasting gospel" truly offers here and now, as well as in the future. The tired, boring, limited gospel that has permeated all churches, including our own, is the swiss cheese that allows such counterfeits as the "emerging church."

Every preacher or advocate for his brand of religion recommends a "new way" to follow Jesus.
This has been the process since religions began:
Each one claims to be the right one, whether Judaism (and its many branches), Islam (with its many varieties), and Christian (with some 2,000 and counting). All this in the name of God. Can mere humans feel helpless in their ability to choose? Then, the question becomes, why must I choose? Is Hell awaiting me if I don't? But then, each religion embraces Hell for non-believers or infidels, so how is a rational choice to be made when all the thousands of religious leaders claim to be THE ONE?

Why should anyone be surprised that many simply opt out; becoming atheist (as McLaren historically describes it) becomes the honest position of those who cannot accept what is being sold. An atheist, as in early Christian time, refused to adopt the Roman gods; today an atheist has looked around, listenend, and found that all the gods represented by these religions claimed such confusion that to make a decision to align with any of them offers no peace, as the voices will continue to swirl around him making strident appeals to go this road to assure eternal salvation.

Sometimes, honesty and one's own integrity must refuse these voices and go his own way, treating his fellowman with respect and refusing to be led into violence and war in God's name--which is still the clarion call "Onward Christian Soldiers, marching as to war" the militant position of all religions at various times in history: Israel's war with its neighbors in Bible times as well as currently; Christian wars for hundreds of years in Europe and Muslim wars ongoing today.

What is the benfit and wisdom of becoming a religious believer that cannot be achieved by leading an honest life, respecting the dignity of all men. Micah had it right: What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and love mercy. It does not require a god to honor that precept.

Although I wasn't able to see the videos, I notice that Johnny, Pat and Herb seem to use "emergent church" in a perjorative way. Since I'm not sure just what all that term implies, I'm wondering why.

I do want to say that I'm in the middle of reading Dr. McLaren's book _The Secret Message of Jesus_ and have been inspired by his thoughts on how Christianity should be about living as citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven today, i.e., trying to make a difference in the world now, more than trying to live so that we will be assured of going to heaven someday ourselves.

Carol,
The MTV styles turn me off not on. The use of the Christian equivalent of contemporary corporate speak also is quite off putting. Some people do find A Generous Orthodoxy helpful. I don't. I'm totally open to some people finding this video helpful. It just isn't for me.

Emerging churches are part of a wider effort to keep Christianity relevant within postmodernity. There are good postmodern Christian theologians around now. Some use the emergent brand others don't.

I've actually been trying to figure out the "emerging" church. Much like the term "post-modernism" it seems to be used loosely to refer a wide array of things--theology, ministry approach, ecclesiology, etc.

From what I understand, theologically, the "emergent" movemen reaction against understandings of the gospel as primarily:

A. forensic (belief in Jesus' death on the cross)
B. other-worldly (in the sky, by and by when I die)

Against such understandings of the gospel, emerging thinkers emphasize, as Carol points out, the present aspect of Jesus' kingdom, and more specifically, the implications for social justice that Jesus' teachings have.

(I don't think there is a definitive statement of beliefs for this movement, so all one can do is notice broad patterns.)

When it comes to ecclesiology, emerging thinkers emphasis community as church, and are "post-denominational." This makes many denominational leaders nervous.

I think that all most these points of emphasis are helpful/salient/relevant, but can lead to a one-sided understanding of Christianity if it is the only thing that is taught.

I've heard criticisms of emerging thinkers on their Christology. They emphasis Jesus' teachings and do not mention the importance of his death. This follows the path of traditional Protestant liberalism.

For a helpful critique of the emergent church from a Reformed perspective, check out:

http://www.desiringgod.org/Events/NationalConferences/Archives/2006

(See the stuff by Mark Driscoll, a pastor who formerly identified himself with the emergent movement, but now is a critic.)

Thanks for the site Zane. John Piper was the first visiting guest preacher that I heard at RTS when I attended there. One need not question his commitment or discipleship and his message was both a challenge and blessing.He has a ministry for the inner city and I have not seen that he expects government to help him do it.

Piper is a post-tribulation pre-mill believer. An eschatology similar to SDA's without heavenly millenium. No "secret rapture" for this Reformed Baptist.The church is a witness during tribulation.

regards

Elaine,

Micah had it right. But if we're to 'get it right,' then we need to not dismember what Micah wrote. One must not ignore the beginning of the text, nor leave out the ending:

"What does the LORD/YHWH require of you...to walk humbly with your God."

If one is to be true to what the text is saying, the conclusion could never be reached that to do justly and to love mercy 'does not require a god to honor this precept.'
This would be nonsense to Micah, and is an eisegesis and misapplication of the text. Doing justly and loving mercy in this statement are inextricably bound up with the worship of YHWH. One was not truly possible without the other.

If you are stating your personal belief, that's fine. Misusing a biblical text to support your world view is another story.

Frank

Could it be that -

(aside from our various gripes against McLaren and the Emergent Church, or the ways we try to excuse ourselves from the argument, like "its just postmillenial stuff," or "its just social gospel stuff,")

- could it be that the god McLaren is wanting to move away from believing in has nothing really to do with the one that suffered and died for this earth and its people. Or that the god that so many invoke to justify their ideological actions in the world is nothing more than a deus ex machina, one that has nothing much to do with the revelation of God in the person of Jesus.

One can do justice and love mercy as an agnostic, can't he?

One can do unto others as he would wished to be treated, without believeing in God.

A good neighbor lives by these rules and whether he's an atheist, Muslim, or Hindu makes no difference to me but only that he is respectful and honorable, whether he calls God by another name, or has no god.

History has not distinguished its good people exclusively by their religious group. There are good people everywhere and if we believe they are all God's children, we will treat them accordingly. The most religious people today are the fantatical Muslim terrorists who are willing to be martyrs for their faith: proving that strong religious beliefs do not make good people.

Ben,

McLaren is free to go any way he chooses. Christianity, love, and peace have meaning and sometimes it is necessary and useful in real life settings to define those meanings.

Pat

Pat, the only thing I've read by Piper is "Desiring God" and I read it a few years ago...I found his concept of 'Christian hedonism' ("God is most glorified, when I am most satisfied in Him.") to be very interesting...and I guess memorable, as I can still remember it. =)

Zane,

I think Piper was expanding the Larger and Shorter WESTMINSTER CATECHISM
Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.

Thanks again

Herb,

I must say that labeling the "emerging church" a counterfeit does not seem to be very helpful. In my honest opinion they, and especially Brian McLaren, put forward a necessary critique against conventional (evangelical) christianity. A christianity that has become a means to motivate and uphold an injust society, in much the same way as the Roman empire domesticated early christianity. In these videos McLares poses some important questions that I think we as a christian community need to try to find answers too.

In the book "Everything Must Change" (which I am halfway through), McLaren says that forms of christianity focusing on Jesus' second advent have been dulled into not trying to change the present society. Can we as a community believing in the soon return of Jesus be contend with not trying to change the world for the better? Is not an important part of what Jesus did on earth actually showing us how do that?

Zane,

I listened to Driscoll this morning on the above website.
It was powerful and well states the issues and proper responses. Great speaker isn't he?

Thanks Again

Pat

Harald, I agree with you that the insistent emphasis on a second coming has dulled our senses to the world around us. If one is constantly focused on "pie-in-the-sky in the sweet-bye and bye" then it becomes imperative that he "get ready (whatever that means) and attempt to get everyone else to his thinking in order to "be ready." In so doing, we have overlooked, and even ignored the many around us who are hungry, in poverty, fighting disease, and wars (in which we are engaged).

Elaine,

If you have time listen to Driscoll who points out the problems of both "over-realized" and "under-realized" eschatology. I suggest you not turn it off if you disagree with parts but listen to the whole thing. I'll appreciate a 95% sound talk anyday!!

pat

Herald; thank you for your comments. I identify with many of the critiques Briam McLaren & others bring out in the emergent conversation...particularly with, as you say, how our eschatology impacts our sense of duty for social justice. I really am uncomfortable with how much of modern evangelicalism has shrunk the Gospel into 'jesus died for your sins so you can go to heaven after you die'...Jesus lived and talked about so much more than this truth.
In my church, it is largely seen as alright to 'do justice & love mercy' only if we are somehow compelling the objects (and they are often merely objects) of our love to walk humbly with our God as well. I think (as do some emergent types) walking humbly with our God can mean doing justice and mercy for others expecting nothing in return (including conversions). Ellen White had something to say about this:
“It is not earthly rank, nor birth, nor nationality, nor religious privilege, which proves that we are members of the family of God; it is love, a love that embraces all humanity…To be kind to the unthankful and to the evil, to do good hoping for nothing again, is the insignia of the royalty of heaven, the sure token by which the children of the Highest reveal their high estate.”
Ellen White – Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing p75

Pat, after attempting to access Driscoll's talk, I was not able to get it, and watching videos via the interent is an exercise in patience, which I have in short supply for nearly all video productions.

It doesn't matter whether you or I agree or disagree with someone, there will always be differences of opinion on religious subjects, so we should never be surprised or try to convince others, as the best we can do is offer our opinions, for whatever they're worth. Opinions in religion are are as many and vast as there are people. And within Adventism there are no less, hence this blog.

Elaine and Harold,

I did not watch the video but only got the audible which was immediate rather than a long download of video stream....if interested. Good on the "now and not yet" of the kingdom and what that means both in our message and service.

Regards

Pat, glad you enjoyed the Driscoll presentation. I got a chance to listen to it again, and thought he came off a bit homophobic and sexist, but was very good on laying out the Christology/eschatology issues at the heart of the debate.

This reminds me of hearing Hauerwas once commenting pejoratively on seminarians at Duke that did not want to take systematic theology classes, i.e. Christology, and wanted instead to move immediately into practical ministry classes like counseling, preaching, etc. Hauerwas likened this to a medical student wanting to help people without taking anatomy and physiology.

It took me a while to figure out what he was talking about, but I think he's dead on. Where one comes down on their Christology is directly influences their understanding of soteriology and vice versa. Christians have traditionally (and paradoxically?) affirmed the full divinity and humanity of Christ; teaching/emphasizing only one side of this results in a one-sided understanding of "salvation", i.e. a distorted "gospel."

Pat,
I listened to the Driscoll talk today, and I appreciate his points about including both the incarnational and exaltational aspects of Christology. The discussion about "over-realized" and "under-realized" eschatology.

However, when it comes to the rest of the 70 minute talk, I was a bit put off. He makes a silly caricature of figures in the emergent conversation, and especially their view of Jesus. When quoting Rob Bell's "Velvet Elvis" - which by the way in Norway is published by the Adventist publishing house - Driscoll does not discuss the message of the paragraph, he only quotes that "The Bible is not primarily about timeless truths...". What Bell sees as the primary focus of the Bible, Driscoll does not mention and does not seem to care about.

In addition, a lot of the content of his uncontestable "sound doctrine", I really can not find biblical. This includes the sexism, but also among other things his view of hell - and people who don't believe in hell understood as literal eternal concious torment. From this talk this seems to me to be a central part of his understanding of the exalted Christ.