On the July 15, 2005 episode of Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly on PBS, Brian McLaren was interviewed on the emerging church.

When asked, “Are there truths related to the faith that we can know, that we can be certain about?” — McLaren dodges the question completely and responds with the following (*this is his complete, unedited response):

Well, first of all, when we talk about the word “faith” and the word “certainty,” we’ve got a whole lot of problems there. What do we mean by “certainty”? If I could substitute the word “confidence,” I’d say yes, I think there are things we can be confident about, and those are the things we have to really work with. This is one of the concerns that some people who are critical of my work have, and I understand their concern. Their concern is they feel you have a choice between certainty and a lack of confidence. Well, I think that there is a proper level of confidence. For example, the people who are sure that white supremacy was justifiable based on the Bible — they were certain about it. I don’t think they had many second thoughts about it. The Europeans who spread around the world and stole lands from the first nations, the native peoples of Africa, North America, South America, Asia — they had no shortage of confidence. They were certain that they were allowed to go and take everybody’s lands and, I mean, the results were horrific for hundreds of years.

So certainty can be dangerous. What we need is a proper confidence that’s always seeking the truth and that’s seeking to live in the way God wants us to live, but that also has the proper degree of self-critical and self-questioning passion. And that’s not a passion for being wishy-washy or, what was the word in the last election, to be a “flip-flopper.” It is a passion to say, “We might be wrong, and we are always going to stay humble enough that we’ll be willing to admit that.” I don’t see that as a lack of fidelity to the teaching of the Bible. I see that as trying to follow the teaching of the Bible. It has a lot of positive things to say about humility.

Read the rest of this 2year old emerging ooze here.

(If you didn’t know, I think I should make it clear: I strongly disagree with McLaren–for there are many things in our faith that we can know for certain. For starters, Christ’s death and resurrection in our place, and Scripture as God’s own breathed, inerrant word. Without even these 2, our faith falls to pieces.)

On the surface, Robert Webber’s book “The Younger Evangelicals” appears to be a good reference for church growth and ministry. But a deeper look into its contents from a biblical perspective provides me with three reasons why I should not waste my precious time reading it and using it to form my ecclesiology:

1. his rejection of propositional truth
2. his rejection of Scriptural inerrancy
3. his de-centralization of the objective Word of God

 Thanks for the heads up, Dr. Gilbert!

I haven’t had time to read the excerpt from Rob Bell’s book, “Sex God”, that’s in Christianity Today… I have a lot to read and that piece just was at the pit in terms of priority. That was the case until last night, when I was compelled to read what in the world Bell has said. Understand this, it is in typical emerging ooze fashion that Bell’s written theology causes many people to discuss his eye-brow raising ideas, and of course, igniting much controversy with those who don’t embrace such a version of emerging Christianity.

With that said, I must refute the premise of that entire article/book chapter: people are not worth dying for. This may be off topic and out of context from the chapter’s main point, but I must lovingly contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to His saints.

Our theology of love, death, sacrifice and giving becomes awfully skewed when we think that we are worthy of Christ’s sufferings and sacrifice, when we consider ourselves worthy for somebody to risk their lives to save us from a falling/burning building, when we feel we deserve somebody to get something from somebody. Our understanding of God becomes twisted towards apostasy and heresy when we think we are worthy of the Lord submitting to the Father’s wrath in our place.

I’ve noted that Rob Bell’s new book, Sex God, should be avoided at all costs and you should rather spend your money on books that are more full of biblical depth… but Christianity Today has published an excerpt of the book “Worth Dying For“, thus you don’t have to spend money or support Bell financially in order to be critic. Have a read, and come to your own conclusions.

As of late, my concern has been about Dallas Willard, his written and preached theology, and how it is infiltrating into the minds of people I love.

See his recommended reading list: do you see anything wrong with what’s listed?

Or…how about his view of salvation?  Concerning ‘very good Buddhists’ and their destiny… and explaining Romans 2:6-10:

What Paul is clearly saying is that if anyone is worthy of being saved, they will be saved. At that point many Christians get very anxious, saying that absolutely no one is worthy of being saved. The implication of that is that a person can be almost totally good, but miss the message about Jesus, and be sent to hell. What kind of a God would do that? I am not going to stand in the way of anyone whom God wants to save. I am not going to say “he can’t save them.” I am happy for God to save anyone he wants in any way he can. It is possible for someone who does not know Jesus to be saved. But anyone who is going to be saved is going to be saved by Jesus: “There is no other name given under heaven by which men can be saved.”

(From Apologetics in Action, emphasis mine)

And somebody please explain to me why he is on “a quiet quest to subvert nominal Christianity“!?!

What else?  In the same September 2006 issue of Christianity Today (which is about how Calvinism/Reformed theology is making a comeback in the church)… I am very disappointed that the president of Calvin Theological Seminary has agreed with Willard that sanctification is NOT by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone:

It’s important to see that this program of renewal has nothing to do with “works righteousness” as the Reformers used that term. In the wonderful world of Willard’s theology of Christian living, justification is still entirely by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. But sanctification is another story. Mortification of the old self and vivification of the new one take not only God’s gift, but also our effort.  No theologian should try to get us off the hook here. Patience, for example, is not only a fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5; it’s also our calling in Colossians 3. And nobody ever became patient without the daily exercise of self-control, especially in the left lane behind a poky driver.

This synergistic theology makes me sick–apparently God’s grace wasn’t enough to really set us free and empower us to live a life of holiness that glorifies Him… it seems Willard believes we really need to put our effort into it!  That’s just apostasy.

As far as the content of what I try to present is concerned it focuses on the gospel of the kingdom of God and becoming a disciple of Jesus in the kingdom of God. SO it doesn’t merely have an emphasis on the forgiveness of sins and assurance of heaven as you are apt to find in most evangelical circles. I think that is vital but it is not the whole story. The issue is whole life, other issues are subordinate to that. After all Jesus said, “I came that you might have life to the full,” which is more than life beyond death.

I think what Willard means is that sanctification is more important than justification… that forgiveness of sin and the assurance of eternal life is subordinate to the issue of the “whole life”.  ~sighs~ Anybody agree with this guy??!