JM on Emergent: “Let’s light some candles and incense and think good thoughts abou
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Thu, September 20, 2007
- Viewed 106
- (85) comments so far
In the article, John talks about the emergent church, and gives a synopsis of the health of the church today…
On the Emergent Church: “They are saying, in effect, that God may have spoken, but He mumbled, and we’re not really sure what He said. Saying that Scripture is not clear is just another way to undermine biblical authority.”
“This is not an intellectual movement. This is not a movement that has discovered evidence that overturns inspiration, evidence that overturns inerrancy or authority. This is a movement born of people who do not want to accept the clarity of Scripture.”
“To claim that the Bible is not sufficiently clear is to assault God’s own wisdom and integrity.”
“It allows them not to take a position on homosexuality, premarital sex, or anything, besides ‘Let’s light some candles and incense, think good thoughts about Jesus, and give to the poor.’”
(I am not a fan of all in the emergent movement… and some of it makes me uncomfortable. But clustering everyone into one big pile of candle-lighting, poor-giving, think good thoughts about Jesus, homosexual loving, anything goes advocates is more than just a little wrong. Some in the emerging movement are pretty dag gone conservative theologically. But many tackle culture a tad differently than JM does. And for that, he lumps them in with the most liberal of the emergents.)
“The assault has never stopped since the Garden...it just escalates and escalates and escalates. It takes different forms and moves in whatever direction the mood of the mob—the spirit of the age—dictates.”
“All the great heroes of the faith end up becoming fools. And the antiheroes—the fools who compromise and who don’t take a stand—become the heroes...It’s turning history on its head. They undo the Reformation so they can go back to a quasi-Christian, medieval spirituality.”
The church today is “quite possibly more susceptible to false teachers, doctrinal saboteurs, and spiritual terrorism than any other generation in church history. Biblical ignorance within the church may well be deeper and more widespread than any other time since the Protestant Reformation.”
(just for the record… I love the words he uses: what is a quasi-christian, what is medieval spirituality, what’s a doctrinal saboteur, and is the term ‘spiritual terrorism’ a new term he’s coining?)
With the seeker sensitive movement “You end up with a very, very marginally knowledgeable church, largely made up of unconverted people.”
“I hear pastors say to me, ‘Oh, I believe the Word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword,’ and I say, ‘It’s good that you say that, but when I hear you preach, you tell a bunch of stories and a bunch of cultural insights. You think your own inventions have more power than the Word of God?’”
From Answers Magazine.
Interesting article. I’m sorry… gotta go. I’m having some of my gay brothers over so we can sniff candles and think nice thoughts about Jesus. Then we’re running down to the bar to do our Bible study. We’re studying the three verses in John that we still find acceptable according to our cultural interpretation. Anyone care to join us?
Todd
(Sorry… sometimes I get in a sarcastic mood, and it gets the best of me.) For the record, I think John MacArthur is a good guy; and I think he’s sincere in his teaching. I just think he’s a little wrong many times. And I’m sure he’d share the same feeling about me (except, maybe, about me being a good guy).
Here are some great quotes from John MacArthur from a recent edition of Answers magazine. Great quotes, not because I agree with them... most I do not. They are harsh and many times over reactive, in my opinion. John's radio program is called Grace to You; but sometimes it appears that that grace is only bestowed on you if you believe exactly as he does. Kind of reminds me of the soup nazi on the old Seinfeld episode. (Seinfeld, for all you MacArthurites, was a popular hit show in the American culture in the 1980s.) His line was... "No Soup for You." Well, if you're a pastor who's reading MMI, it quite possibly could read, "No Grace for You."
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
Derek on Fri, September 21, 2007
MG
It is not TRUTH that divides among Christians. It is often Christians interpretations of truth that divides…
Do we worship with icons or no icons?
Do we worship in Greek or Latin?
Do we give allegiance to the pope or not?
Do we reform the church or start our own?
Do we baptize babies or adults?
Do we accept Christ by faith or does God save us sovereignly?
Do we expect holiness (perfection) in this life or not?
Do we speak in tongues or not?
Do we sing with traditional music or contemporary music?
Do we attract the lost to our services or not?
Do we light candles and do yoga as a part of church life or not?
Historically, it is our INTERPRETATION of truth that divides.
Derek
P.S. I watched the video…who is that guy mad at…maybe he should do some yoga, he may relax a little.
No more new hair, Im too tired to grow on Fri, September 21, 2007
Jesus came to divide believers and non believers my friend. Jesus did not come to divide believers, He wants us to be united.
MG- Do you think that I do not have issues within the church that I will not divide over? Ofcourse I do. I do not believe in transgendered pastors or Homosexuals in the pulpit. I believe that their are essentials within our faith that we must hold to. Yet my mission in life is not to tell people in a flippant, self righteous way that my theology is right and that theres is wrong.
John has made a whole career of making himself look right while making others look wrong, His pride has lead him to the place of writing a Bible with His own name on it…very few men in History have ever had the gall to do that….No apostle ever did.
If you want to use scripture to show us that division in the body of Christ is good, then do it but dont use the ones that you have quoted.
Wendi on Fri, September 21, 2007
Here is an example of why JM’s style is destructive . . .
A young gal works for me who is very vulnerable, a little simple (had a tough young adult life with drug and alcohol trouble). She is also very hungry to be a good Christ follower. Last night she attended a class at her church (I work in the para-church). Instructor began teaching some strong Arminian doctrine (her interpretation – “you might lose your salvation if you don’t live right every minute!!”). She raised her hand and asked a question that sounded a bit Calvinistic. The teacher admonished her, saying what she was asking about is false doctrine. She allowed not at all for different views on this disputable issue, and categorically stated that anyone who disagrees is promoting false doctrine. My staff gal said that she lay awake all night wondering what she might do to lose her salvation . . .
Now I know JM is a Calvinist and wouldn’t trouble my staff member about her salvation, but he would (does) certainly say that everyone who disagrees is promoting false doctrine. What we were able to discuss is how to discern what is essential and what is not. But most people who listen to “Grace to You” or read JM’s books do not have someone who will help the student gain perspective and balance.
JM is destructive because of his arrogant and divisive behavior witnessed by the non- believing world, and because of the vulnerable people (like my staff member) who he influences.
MG – truth isn’t a doctrinal dissertation . . . it is living and breathing, already and not yet, relevant to every culture and every age . . . and though it is indeed unchanging, it is also different through place and time and culture.
Wendi
revolutionfl on Sat, September 22, 2007
I think that the Soup Nazi reference is simply brilliant! He loves the soup (scripture) and He is a master of making soup (exegeting scripture), but he has no love for people.
I thank you for that illustration. I am going to wear that one out.
REVOLUTION
MG on Sun, September 23, 2007
Wow Wendi what an unfortunate postmodern statement. “MG – truth isn’t a doctrinal dissertation . . . it is living and breathing, already and not yet, relevant to every culture and every age . . . and though it is indeed unchanging, it is also different through place and time and culture.”You wrote much with that but in all honesty said nothing.As to the woman and the “teacher” who you say was an example of “why JM is so destructive” - that clearly depends on your perspective because in my experience with those of a Calvinist perspective they would go to scripture to settle the issue where as, and this is clearly the case with your example, the Arminian leader will cast accusations, warn of following a “false docrine” or as Dave Hunt and George Bryson do call Calvinism poison and rewrite history to defend their argument. (Note: Dave Hunt himself says he knows little about the Reformers, yet in a recommendation for his book a local church states that Calvinism has its roots in Roman Catholicism which is absurd).The whole tenet of your comment Wendi is ripe with this idea that our words and our slightest misstep can send someone to hell, it is God and God alone who saves - therein lies the root of the issue with your statement. Unfortunately the woman you mentioned probably had a good understanding and then was shamefully reprimanded by a teacher steeped in tradition and habit but not so much in understanding scripture.
Leonard on Sun, September 23, 2007
MG,
Culture, context and situations all go to understanding truth. Wendi is more than capable to defend her thoughts and to explain her thoughts so I won’t give a lot of effort. I will say that Wendi was not saying truth is nothing but quite the opposite. As for truth not being a doctrinal dissertation… Right on the money here. Wendi is not saying DD are untrue but that DD often find themselves with a mix of culture, circumstance and moment in history and of course truth.
My struggle with JM is not that he does not know truth or even grace, it is the way he lumps people together in broad brush strokes. It is his clinging to method as truth when it is method. For example…Expository preaching. I have heard him say personally.. This is the only way… is this truth or is it his understanding of truth?
As for your characterization of MMI? That came across as arrogant and offensive. You don’t know us. You never met me or any of the other people here. There is no doctrinal statement of MMI or those who post so your comment revealed you possess very little understanding about the purpose, role and intent of MMI and it’s contributers.
Personally I invite you to understand what MMI is about and why we post here. If you can respect that then I gladly interact with you. If you cannot appreciate what we do here or why, I wonder why you interact here at all.
Wendi and I would disagree in some areas of doctrine important to both of us.We both take the bible seriously and study, simply coming to different conclusions. I would also say that from what I have learned from Wendi as well as about Wendi through MMI I am a better pastor and person. I have deep respect for her and many others here. IMO Your statement came across as disrespectful and almost as if you wanted to pick a fight.
If that is in your heart I encourage you to check it, if not I encourage you to consider how you come across.
Finally, often we use humor to get a point across. It should be noted that in a public forum not everyone has a good understanding of humor and can sometimes feel as though disrespect is intended. I know I have crossed this line on more than one occasion. That being said I find the people here at MMI try to take God very seriously and take ourselves much less seriously.
Thanks Todd for a great venue of conversation and encouragement.
Leonard
Wendi on Sun, September 23, 2007
Leonard - Thank you for your kind words. You do a very good job of articulating and explaining my thoughts.
MG – I agree with Leonard that your response to me is disrespectful and your comments about MMI sound arrogant and are obviously uninformed.
This isn’t a post about Calvinism vs. Arminianism, but I used this example from a conversation w/ a staff member last week to show the possible consequences of postures and behavior like that of JM. I fully believe we will greet in heaven, Jacobus Arminius and John Wesley and thousands of Christian heroes who were Nazarene, Disciples of Christ or in some way Arminian in their leanings. Just as we will greet John Calvin (and John MacArthur) and all those happy reformed theologians, like the Presbyterians and Congregationalists. For that reason, when my staff member asked a “Calvinist” type of question (she asked about eternal security) of her “Arminian” type teacher – a better way to respond would have been to say:
“Good question, you are in good company for asking it. For centuries solidly biblical and godly Christian scholars have come to different conclusions about the question you ask. I have a belief about this based on my careful study of scripture and I’ll be happy to meet with you after class to discuss it with you.” Had she said this instead of accusing her of coming dangerously close to false doctrine for even posing the question, my staff member, who is a wonderfully devoted Christ follower, wouldn’t have had a sleepless night questioning her salvation.
When it comes to disputable doctrine – JM claims to have a corner on which doctrine is “true,” and this is at best arrogant. But as Leonard pointed out, JM goes even further, claiming that methods, like expository preaching, is “truth,” and implies (or even states) that those who use methods he disagrees with are “false prophets” (I’ve heard him say this).
When Jesus said “I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life” and “you shall know the TRUTH and the TRUTH shall set you free” - - - I don’t think He meant “the way is a correct set of doctrinal beliefs and you need to figure out exactly what those beliefs are” or “you will become free when you submit yourself to a pastor who uses the correct preaching methods.”
My point is that truth is a person, one who transcends culture and time and context. It looks and feels in many ways completely different to a 21st century westerner than it did to a 1st century Jew. It is communicated differently from Grace Community Church to Mars Hill to the little rural church I attended in Swaziland, Africa - - - but the miracle is that it’s still truth.
Wendi
Peter Hamm on Sun, September 23, 2007
Also, MG, you write “...your example, the Arminian leader will cast accusations, warn of following a “false docrine” or as Dave Hunt and George Bryson do call Calvinism poison and rewrite history to defend their argument.”
Uh, I’ve known plenty of Arminians who appeal to Scripture. This is a bit of an oversimplification, to say the least. And plenty of “emergents” who have a VERY high view of Scripture and apeal to it very elegantly, like Bell, McManus, Kimball, and others.
But in any case, we’re not really a theology debate forum here at MMI.
THis post is more about whether or not Macarthur is critiquing those he is in this particular instance from a proper bibilical perspective and in a proper biblical manner.
I’ll repeat what I asked earlier.
[It is true that Macarthur has lambasted some Christian leaders publicly who he has not spoken with privately. The question is, is that biblical or right?
It is also true that he has lumped pretty much all emergents together into one heretical category. Is that biblical or right?]
I just don’t think so in either case.
Wendi on Sun, September 23, 2007
I’m afraid that I was the one who invited a doctrinal discussion with MG. Sorry if it created a topical detour.
My point related to JM is this:
JM (and the woman I initially wrote about) has a circle of orthodoxy a big as a crater. For him, there are no non-essential doctrines. And he goes further. Not only does he decide for his own ministry that he will hold to a huge circle of orthodoxy, he proclaims anyone a heretic who believes differently, posits there actually ARE non-essential doctrines about which mature and God honoring Christians can differ. And he goes still further. [As Leonard points out] he turns methodology into doctrine, and labels those whose methods differ from him as proclaiming false doctrine.
This posture makes it completely impossible for him to have unity amid diversity within the larger body of Christ. And THIS IS (unity) an essential doctrine of the church . . . one that JM is (IMO) failing to model and live by. For a seasoned Christian leader who has been honored with the gift of influence, it is poor stewardship at best, and is completely failing to abide by the counsel of scripture in regard to disagreements with fellow Christians.
Wendi
MG on Mon, September 24, 2007
Peter your posing as blogmaster is quite tired. I didn’t bring Calvinism/Arminianism into the discussion, Wendi did (as I see you mentioned Wendi), I’ve said my piece as far as that goes other than to say I still find it sadly amusing that the teacher of Arminianist ideas called Calvinism a false doctrine when the Synod of Dort and Christian Creeds and leaders down through the years in times of great revival have been soundly and consistently on the side of Calvin, Augustine, Paul and Jesus Christ when it comes to the doctrines of salvation.
Wendi what you claim to be a “larger body” of Christ, have you ever even slightly considered the fact that it could very well be you are looking at the broad way and considering them all members of Christ when in fact they, by Jesus Christ’s clear and unambiguous statements, are not for they have never been known by Him?
Brian on Mon, September 24, 2007
Very difficult to understand why we want John M to eat the chicken and spit out the bones when it comes to the Emergent Church, but we won’t do the same thing for him. I’ve only read one or two posts in this stream that will acknowlege the truth in what John has said, which is, that the leadership and core of the Emergent Church is leading the church, just as the seeker sensitive model has, away from the Word of God as the sole source of truth and guide for life.
In case you haven’t noticed, I just don’t read or hear of stories of Emergent Churches who are actually leading people to find a saving relationship with Christ, then actually seeing those people grow in their knowlege and understanding of God.
The social Gospel route has been tried before. The result: thousands of mainline churches who once preached the truth are now liberal social organizations. Does this mean their aren’t some Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopals or Presbyterians who are preaching the Gospel and making a difference for Christ - of course not - but it is the exception, not the rule. AND those minority churches or leaders are not in the core leadership of their respective movements.
I don’t necessarily agree with John all the time, but that isn’t the point. I doubt anyone appreciated Elijah or Isaiah’s tone either.
John is a teacher, but he is also a prophet. There is no place in the Emergent Church for the prophet.
Finally, if you haven’t bothered to read the writings of some of the Emergent Church core leaders - they have been very critical and harsh of the traditional church. While I don’t attend an “old fashioned” traditional church, I do attend a church that has a tradional format while using modern worship music. Has anyone noticed how harsh the Emergent Leaders are toward the traditional church?
Put yourself in the shoes of guys like John Mac, Charles Stanley, etc… is the Emergent Movement right for telling them that their approach to the Word, their approach to reaching their communities, etc… is suddenly outdated and ineffective? Has anyone bothered to ask John, Charles etc… if their churches are still seeing people won to Christ?
Again, are people actually being one to Christ in Emergent Churches?
I’m not a Johnny Mac defender, I just dislike the lack of balance and unwillingness to view many of the leaders of the Emergent Church as being dangerous to the faith. Paul clearly tells us to watch out for wolves in sheep’s clothing. What do you think he was referring to?
Gotta go… sorry for the long rant…
Derek on Mon, September 24, 2007
MG writes: Wendi what you claim to be a “larger body” of Christ, have you ever even slightly considered the fact that it could very well be you are looking at the broad way and considering them all members of Christ when in fact they, by Jesus Christ’s clear and unambiguous statements, are not for they have never been known by Him?
MG, but how do WE judge who is in that larger body? I think we can take the Nicene Creed as a good benchmark for orthodoxy. (Sorry Peter this is taking us down a theological path) However, JM tends to make the boundaries of orthodoxy much more narrow.
This has been a long standing debate in the church, “How much orthodoxy does it take to be considered a Christian?” Paul dealt with this issue time and time again and the Scripture and it seems that the theological boundaries where rather wide. It is also noteworthy that many of the issues Paul dealt with in the Scripture where issues of practice (or methodology?)...eating meat sacrificed to idols, circumcision, etc. Paul continued to lean on the side of not judging another man’s servant.
I understand that we need a rule of faith, such as the Nicene Creed. I believe in the importance of right doctrine, but we cannot continue to make the mistakes of the past and divide over non essentials.
We need to heed Rupertus Meldenius, who first published the phrase “In essentials Unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.” (BTW this is often attributed to Augustine, but according to Phillip Schaff it was coined by Meldenius, a 17th cen. Lutheran writer.)
And concerning truth, it has always had a lived/experiential component. And that is not necessarily liberal or emergent. Karl Barth was an outspoke voice for truth and doctrine and it’s role in the life of the church. He helped to save evangelical theology from the onslaught of liberalism. [Sorry Peter…again a theological path… http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/grin.gif ]
Brian—Re-read many of the the above posts. Many of us have good things to say about JM. I said in an earlier post that his is a great Bible teacher, but horrible judge of orthodoxy.
Derek
Leonard on Mon, September 24, 2007
MG
I still don’t know why you are here. I am not asking you to leave but you seem bent on confrontation. That is a different website. You came in here with judgment (“Not that I really expected more from MMI, just that I would expect more from those who profess the name of Christ as their Lord and Savior.”) and now you have Wendi on the broad road to destruction. So again, why are you here? You obviously do not understand what MMI is about and want to make it about something else.
Brian, it is not so much that I think Mac should eat the chicken and spit out the bones, I just think Mac often says all chickens are bad because they are not beef. Its true the knife cuts both ways and many in the emergent church are downright wrong and disrespectful too. It has however been a pattern with Mac to criticize many parts of the body with whom he disagrees.
As to your assertion that you don’t hear of emergent churches leading people to Christ and then seeing them grow, I would simply say, you need to get out more. They may not be leading them to look more and think more like Mac, but many emergent churches are doing a fine job of this. As for Mac being a prophet… That is not even a title he gives himself.
Peter Hamm on Mon, September 24, 2007
Brian writes [I’ve only read one or two posts in this stream that will acknowlege the truth in what John has said, which is, that the leadership and core of the Emergent Church is leading the church, just as the seeker sensitive model has, away from the Word of God as the sole source of truth and guide for life.] Sorry, I just haven’t seen this at all. I would hesitate to call this a “truth”. The “Emergent” leaders I’ve read (and I’ve read a bunch of this stuff) are just as likely to have a high view of scripture as the more traditional. But you also speak of the “core of the Emergent Church” as if it’s an established organizaztion… This just isn’t so…
I guess I have to assume, based on the fact that no one has answered my two questions I’ve posed twice above that perhaps MG and perhaps you, Brian, think it’s okay and biblical for JM to lambaste some Christian leaders publicly who he has not spoken with privately, and that it os perfectly okay and acceptable for him to lump pretty much all emergents together into one heretical category. I don’t think either is okay, or even that intellectually sound.
Leonard on Mon, September 24, 2007
I think it is always okay to call out heresy whether you have spoken to another person or not. But to call out people over method or practice… I would say not so fast.
Here in lies the rub. For many, method is doctrinal. Again expository preaching as an example. The assumption is if we do not do that from the pulpit our people will be illiterate biblically and therefore we are not teaching the whole council of scripture. If the only place in any church the bible is being taught is the pulpit, then Houston, we have a problem.
To decide what is vulgar and then to say someone is vulgar based upon our own definition is wrong. To decide what methods are biblical and then to say someone is unbiblical based upon our own definition is wrong.
Jesus prayed that we would become one… Our biggest problem is when we try to decide which one. A final piece on this is we are simply so western in our viewpoint that a large portion of what we argue about does not even apply in many countries of the world and we go around trumpeting out viewpoints as though they came straight from the mouth of Jesus.
Page 3 of 6 pages < 1 2 3 4 5 > Last »
Post a Comment