McManus misses the mark
Posted on : 03-07-2007 | By : Alex S. Leung | In : Emergent
16
Erwin McManus has had a significant impact on my church. My pastor reads him a lot and takes a lot of theological insights into ministry from this emerging pastor and “cultural architect”. So after reading this sobering review of his latest book “Soul Cravings“, I am left very disturbed by the emerging missional theology that Mr. McManus preaches and writes. I know my pastor has read this page-numberless book, has lent it out to many high schoolers in our congregation, and thus I am scared that the understanding of sin and salvation our young generation has could very well be skewed and incomplete.
Just because a book is labeled as “Christian” and sold in a Christian bookstore does not ever mean it fully bears the marks of true, Christianity — the historic, Christian orthodoxy kind.
In Soul Cravings, McManus has thrown out the doctrine of original sin, human depravity, and completely missed the mark at trying to share the Gospel with non-Christians through this bok — a half-Gospel masquerading as the whole Gospel that has become a complete un-Gospel (along the lines of J.I. Packer’s vernacular).
Jonathan Leeman, director of communications for 9Marks and PhD student at Southern Seminary writes an open letter to McManus in review of “Soul Cravings” — calling the cultural architect to write a book for non-Christians that gets the gospel right.
In other words, beholding God’s grand expression of love on the cross should change us as it shows us how loving God really is. Well, that’s true to a point. But you still haven’t told the non-believer what exactly he’s beholding on the cross. He is, in fact, beholding the Son of God taking upon himself the wrath of God for the sins of all who repent and believe. That picture is amazing. But it’s more. It’s actually doing something, like paying for sin.
Are you beginning to see why I was surprised to find an affirmation of the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message? It affirms original sin, God’s holiness and wrath, penal substitution, and a strong conception of repentance in conversion. I trust that you affirm those things. But I fear that your practice, at least in this book, rests on an altogether different theology. By calling me to look for God in my heart’s longings for intimacy, destiny, and meaning, you’re calling me back to all the old idols of my college years. You’re calling me back to a worldview embedded in today’s secular culture. You’re calling me, in the language of Feuerbach, to project my own subjective essence into the world outside myself and to objectify it as God (cf. Is. 44:13-17; Ps. 115:4-8).
In so far as I can tell, our dear Pastor of Mosaic is a disgrace to be affiliated with the SBC — pretending to uphold the Baptist Faith & Message when certainly Soul Cravings proves that what he teaches does not. I cannot recommend his work to Christians who lack solid discernment, let alone non-Christians who cannot tell the difference between a sheep and a wolf.
I love it when you bring up these types of topics for me to think over and learn how to pick out heresy when I see it… Excellent. Keep this kind of stuff up.
You’re very welcome, Carl. I’ll try to be of more help to my readers by sharing my own discernments.
SDG,
Alex S. Leung
[...] with, especially when you have placed yourself in a position of influence. After reading an article by Alex S. Leung citing this letter, one commenter [...]
You are a bit off with your interpretation of this book
http://christianresearchnetwork.info/2007/07/20/looking-into-things/
Alex,
I wouldn’t give any concern whatsoever to what Nathan says over at CRN.(Mis)Info? as he’s simply a blinded disciple of McManus under the delusion that he’s going to “change the future”: Nathan Neighbour. Note the quote of man-love he attributes to Nelson Mandela.
I already showed him in Emergent Church Pastor Rob Bell Recites The Mystic Mantra For The New Evangelical Religion Of Man’s Love Of Self that this quote actually comes from New Age guru-ess Marianne Williamson! Pretty scary when Erwin McManus, your supposedly “Christian” pastor, has a philosophy which agress with an unregenerate non-believer.
Sadly, Nathan’s now way out of his league. And here’s the link to a review of this occult soul craving garbage by McManus done by my friend Dr. Gary Gilley and he says the very same thing Leeman does.
Hello Nathan,
Thanks for sharing your link and linking to my post here. Out of brotherly affection to you and for a Christ-like dialog, I’ll choose not to delete your comment for now.
However, I do not appreciate your putting down of my church brother, Larker — especially in saying “I wonder how many people are now walking around thinking Erwin McManus is a heretic due to one man’s bad exegesis of his work.”
I take personal offense to that remark, as I do know my brother and you do not. I have taught him numerous times in Sunday School and personally to discern people’s writings to see how they align with the message of the Holy Bible. If there is any bad exegesis happening, it would be of McManus’ non-exegesis of the biblical narrative and the Gospel accounts.
I thought I made my point and understanding of the issues at hand very clear when I clarified it in bold. The issue is the presentation of a gospel of Love that neglects a clear presentation WHAT that love is — namely, the Good News of Jesus Christ, the Lord: who died as God’s one and only begotten Son and rose again to bear your sins, to become a curse for us, endure the condemnation that we deserved, removed our guilt, and secure everlasting joy in the presence of the all-satisfying God.
Moreover, I am very disturbed by how undiscerning unbelievers would be pointed in the wrong direction as their soul cravings are identified–that is to the God that is in themselves. Romans 8 would tell us that these cravings of the flesh are “futile” (even those of regenerate believers), and that we must place our hope in Christ for the adoption as Sons & redemption of our bodies–for in this hope we were saved. The Spirit groans on our behalf for these Divine things that we cannot yearn for in our earthly, corrupted selves. For this we must pray to God for, and I do so also for McManus, and you my brother.
By His grace and for His glory,
Alex S. Leung
Exactly,
If you taught him to “discern” writings in the same fashion that you “discerned” Soul Cravings, then we have a huge problem. Not only were these reviews way off, but it they basically put words into McManus’ mouth. Maybe you should read Romans 1-2 and see if God has placed eternity in the hearts of man.
Over at CRN.(Mis)Info? Nathan states: “The basic idea of the book is that every human being’s soul craves God. We have an common void in our souls that can only be filled with God.”
This is exactly what both reviewers took isue with because while it is the prevailing view of semi-pelagian new evangelicalism it is NOT Biblical. Unregenerate man is dead in sin and slaves to Satan i.e. totally depraved.
Which is to say that despite any inherent “goodness” on a human level an individual may have he does not seek God on his own, nor can he. The reviews stand.
Ken,
just because your soul craves God, does not mean that you are seeking Him. Most people are filling that void in their heart with sex, money, power, etc. What they don’t understand is that their souls are really in need of a God that can save them.
Nathan,
That is human speculation and not Bible. Scripture teaches unregenerate mankind is spiritually dead - period. Those “cravings” are not for God or from God but come from their own sinful natures which I cover in great detail in Your Evil “True Self”.
McManus teaches the exact opposite of the true doctrine of election and he has told many that he hates it. That’s because it is diametrically opposed to this semi-pelgagian fantasy.
Sola Scriptura! Solus Christos! Soli Deo Gloria!
Dear Alex
Interesting post and comments discussion. Just one little typo/spelling correction in your title: should be “Misses” not “Missess”.
“Maybe you should read Romans 1-2 and see if God has placed eternity in the hearts of man”?
I don’t know if you imply that God has or hasn’t. I don’t want to put words into your mouth here…
I’ve previously done a 5 part series on Romans 1, and have found the answer to be somewhat of a yes and a no.
Yes, God has inlayed the evidence of spiritual and moral truth in the very nature of our being, (call them soul cravings if you prefer) so that we are without excuse to know what is right and wrong, and who God is. Ignorance is indeed no excuse since we have been given revelation of God so that we may know of Christ who is the living Word.
However, no — man having the truth, suppress it and reject it, and turn from it. Many of us know God, but many still do not honor or thank Him. These people turn from the truth given by God, and in pushing it away or running from it, the darkness of human folly and futility rejects God.
(aka: Larker)
So a lot of back and forth on this post. I’m a little befuddled that you’d call me out like that. I never thought it’d be used as fodder for a discussion like this.
After reading through all the posts that people have made, I’m thinking it comes down to whether we really believe in “total depravity” or not. If you do, then you’d believe that every little thing about ourselves, as is, is displeasing to God and has nothing to do with Him. If not, then I suppose we might consider that God (and other good things) can be found/come forth from inside ourselves. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that is the general idea of things here, right?
Well, it’s quite clear that we’ve got professors on the subject telling us that what McManus has been teaching/writing isn’t based on Biblical truths/evidence. It also seems that it has subtones of New Age-ish stuff (from the bits of the book that I’ve read and from what others have told me). I’ve done some dabbling (read: light reading) in the subject of worldviews. Here’s what James W. Sire says (in “The Universe Next Door”, a comparison of major worldviews) about one of New Age thinking’s main aspects:
Now, this might not seem to have too much to do with anything said here, but if you think about it, if the self (i.e. our souls) is really the prime reality, then that would justify us going against all innate urges tending towards empirical evidence and heading straight to the “prime reality” of our own selves for proof of anything, such as God.
I’ve always grown up with the teaching (and I believe it’s correct) that Scripture is the measuring stick against which all other things are to be measured. If I sin, I only know not because of guilt that may or may not come, but because it is clearly stated in the Bible that I am not to, for example, steal, murder, covet, or lust. The Law is what exposes the sin, as Romans 7:7 states very clearly. It’d be hypocritical of myself to point out that McManus says things aside from the Bible and not quote passages to defend what I want to say.
Moreover, I don’t think it’s unfair to say, because I have been taught by the same hand that has written this post, that I must be agreeing with that person (i.e. Alex) out of being taught by him and I am thus biased or just have the wrong ideas similarly ingrained. That would be a fallacy if I ever saw one. Just because I have been taught by Alex himself doesn’t mean that I am 100% with what he’s taught (even though I have tremendous respect for him and his Bible-hugging ways) or more importantly, that I don’t have anything learned from sources other than Alex.
The more likely conclusion would be that many different people (such as myself, Alex, and Pastor Ken) have all reached the same conclusions based on the simple fact that what McManus says isn’t Biblical. What IS Biblical is the depravity of mankind, his unregenerate ways, the substitution of Christ for ourselves as God’s object of wrath, etc…
Nevertheless, take care and my God bless to each as He pleases.
Carl,
I commend you in the Lord my brother. You say: “I’m thinking it comes down to whether we really believe in ‘total depravity’ or not.”
This is exactly the issue. The semi-pelagian new evangelicals like McManus hate the doctrines of grace and are attacking the very Gospel itself.
So because of this, as expressed in Jude 3, we have no choice but to defend the faith once for all delivered. It isn’t personal, but McManus is holding out another gospel.
And what does Galatians 1 say about this…
Indeed, the Gospel (along with the directly related issues of total depravity & the doctrines of grace) is the very reason we are having the conversation right now. And I would echo John Stott in saying, “All theology must be developed within earshot of the dying cry of Jesus.” It seems that McManus vouches for his Gospel of love philosophically, while staying very far away from an earshot of the dying cry of Jesus.
Soul Cravings is in my humble opinion another example of why “in the evangelical church today we are in danger of downplaying
and even distorting the true meaning and significance of the cross. (my proff, Stephen Wellum in the latest issue of the SBJT) “But, sadly, this understanding of the cross (penal substitution) is being downplayed, caricatured, and even rejected in recent theology—not merely non-evangelical theology where this has always been the case—but now, even within evangelical theology as well.”
And just in case there’s any postmodern ambiguity here, I reckon what Pastor Ken referred to is Galatians 1:6-10 (emphasis mine):
And yes, I feel sickened that it’s like going back ~2000years to Galatia
These kinds of things are bound to happen. It’s harsh but necessary to correct each other (and to accept correction) all in humility when we see a brother going astray. I do hope our brother Nathan here will really consider all that’s been said (most importantly, by God so clearly through the biblical writings). Take care gentlemen (especially you Alex, while you head on down to the States for some hardcore schooling).