I must admit a bias against McLaren and the Emergent Church. Mostly this is because of their lack of doctrinal integrity - especially in the areas our modern world finds hard to swallow. Areas such as homosexuality, sin and atonement etc are very much “grey” areas for the Emergent movement.
I just a LayGuy in this whole area and I am on my journey of discovery. But my journey will always be guided by the authority of scripture. Many emergent people don’t like this “God says it - it must be true” mentality and I have already been addressed for this. But I honestly don’t care. Paul says to take every thought captive which stacks up itself against the knowledge of Christ. For the Emergents, they don’t take captive, they disregard the rest and run with the renegade thought.
However, I need to remember that the Emergents are still on my team because of Christ and I need to be humble enough to learn from them and to see if I can glean anything from them which I can apply. To do so, I listened to a sermon done by Dr. Gerry Breshears on the Emerging Church.
I found this sermon fascinating and informative as it focused on McLaren’s book, The Story We Find Ourselves In: Further Adventures of a New Kind of Christian
One of the strengths Breshears says about McLaren is his insight into modern culture and the revolt away from Church. I find this a very true assessment as in McLaren I see a guy who is concerned about the way Church is done - but runs in the opposite direction too quickly bypassing sound doctrine on the way. But many times I see in him a heart concerned for realism. A heart yearning to connect the lost of the world to Jesus. But his weakness is that he places man’s thoughts higher than God’s thoughts and encourages others to do so also.
Watch him below in this short video clip as he talks about the exploits of the modern worship music scene. I tend to agree with most of what he says until the end. I personally don’t see architecture as a tool for worship, but then again, that’s me, as the LayGuy and that’s McLaren..
Tags: brian mclaren, emergent church, emergent, breshears
sorry . . did you really say sin and atonement were grey areas in the EC?
Hi TSK, Yes I did say that. Have a listen to what Dr. Breshears says about McLaren’s take on substitutionary atonement. Basically dismisses it because it makes no sense from a humanistic perspective. It echoes what Paul was saying, “the gospel is foolishness to the Greeks.”
In his book, McLaren’s characters dialogue about this topic, it makes no sense to the seeker and they move on. If McLaren was serious about this topic, he would have nailed it in his book - but his silence shouts.
Hi Layguy
Have you actually read the book?
“In his book, McLaren’s characters dialogue about this topic, it makes no sense to the seeker and they move on.”
That’s pretty far from what McLaren does. He talks a lot about atonement and different takes on the atonement.
I think he focuses to much on the cross in his atonement-theories, but you would probably disagree. To say that McLaren isn’t concerned about atonement or that “his silence shouts” - that’s just not serious.
Shalom
Steffen
Steffen, thanks for your comment. I’m quoting Breshears on his thoughts about the content on McLaren’s book. No I haven’t read it - I’ll admit that.
Breshears is a much smarter man than I and in the above sermon he points out McLaren’s strengths many times (have you listened to it yet?)
Breshears focus’ on this point quite heavily - the fact that the seeker questions the atonement and doesn’t make sense - the Pastors wife asks her husband to respond - he does so but still doesn’t nail the point and then the story moves on. In effect bypassing this extremely important topic.
I respect your comment on how you think he focuses too much on the atonement. Respectfully, I would disagree with you. If you took the bible, and divided it according to subject matter, you would find that atonement makes up the majority.
If God points out the need for atonement in His word and if Jesus faithfully acted his part out - to the letter, I don’t think anyone can focus too much on this topic. And this is Breshear’s argument.
I’m pretty much in agreement on brian mclaren and EC. I don’t have time for sermon right now cause i aleady have one i just listened to and another to get too
And boys that will be up from a nap soon. But If i remember i will come back. I’m so skeptical though on listenting to much out of the EC when there are so many other things I would rather be listening too.
Hi Layguy
Thanks for your kind response.
Just to clear up - I don’t think McLaren focuses to much on the atonement. Gods movement towards us, his gift, his mercy cannot be overstated. I agree on that.
My concern is that we remember the full scope of the atonement - the life of Jesus, the death of Jesus and the resurrection of Jesus.
I think the protestant church as a whole has narrowed its view on the atonement, and I think that maybe McLaren is still writing in that tradition. But I am grateful for his attempt to start a conversation about the different views (or “windows” as he writes) on the atonement.
Together we can know more of the height, the depth, and the lenght of Gods love.
God bless you, layguy
Shalom
Steffen
Steffen - we are in agreement brother. I’m not here to bag McLaren. I like to listen what others, way smarter than me, have to say about people making a massive impact in the world.
McLaren has strengths, and also weaknesses - which kind of proves he is just human like you and me.
Like your words on the “full scope of the atonement” - in effect the whole gospel.