Saturday, February 4, 2012
Total visitors right now: 70

Logged-in members:

Andrew W
Anselmic
hanks
robroy
Stefano

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Want to advertise on Stand Firm? Click here for rates and info

Brian McLaren to Emit Emergent Cloud of Nuanced Unknowing at Lambeth Conference (Updated)

Wednesday, May 14, 2008 • 6:21 am

Brian Mclaren, one of the leaders of the emerging church movement, has been invited to address the assembled bishops at Lambeth. This should not be a surprise as McLaren is wholly committed to repackaging all the vague, undefined, and frankly antinomian aspects of mainline protestantism and infusing them into evangelicalism under the guise of a sort of "hip" mysticism fused with bad hygene

Rumor has it that Brian Mclaren, one of the leaders of the emerging church movement, has been invited to address the assembled bishops at Lambeth. This should not be a surprise as McLaren is wholly committed to repackaging all the vague, undefined, and frankly antinomian aspects of mainline protestantism and infusing them into evangelicalism under the guise of a sort of “hip” mysticism fused with bad hygiene.

Here’s Mclaren’s take on the behavior Leviticus 18:22 describes as an abomination and St. Paul calls shameless…but of course Brian McLaren knows better.

Frankly, many of us don’t know what we should think about homosexuality. We’ve heard all sides but no position has yet won our confidence so that we can say “it seems good to the Holy Spirit and us.” That alienates us from both the liberals and conservatives who seem to know exactly what we should think. Even if we are convinced that all homosexual behavior is always sinful, we still want to treat gay and lesbian people with more dignity, gentleness, and respect than our colleagues do. If we think that there may actually be a legitimate context for some homosexual relationships, we know that the biblical arguments are nuanced and multilayered, and the pastoral ramifications are staggeringly complex. We aren’t sure if or where lines are to be drawn, nor do we know how to enforce with fairness whatever lines are drawn.

Perhaps we need a five-year moratorium on making pronouncements. In the meantime, we’ll practice prayerful Christian dialogue, listening respectfully, disagreeing agreeably. When decisions need to be made, they’ll be admittedly provisional. We’ll keep our ears attuned to scholars in biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology, and related fields. Then in five years, if we have clarity, we’ll speak; if not, we’ll set another five years for ongoing reflection. After all, many important issues in church history took centuries to figure out. Maybe this moratorium would help us resist the “winds of doctrine” blowing furiously from the left and right, so we can patiently wait for the wind of the Spirit to set our course.

McLaren is absolutely correct about the dignity, gentleness and respect that we must necessarily exhibit toward those living in sinful relationships, but otherwise his words could very easily be mistaken for those of a muddled theologically incoherent Episcopal priest. Then again, I suppose he could qualify as a Camp Allen bishop.

Don’t get me wrong, there are certainly orthodox emergent church leaders. Mark Driscoll, for one, is fantastic. Here is Driscoll’s response to McClaren:

...on January 23rd McLaren wrote an article for Leadership that is posted on this blog. In it he argues that because the religious right is mean to gays we should not make any decision on the gay issue for 5-10 years.

As the pastor of a church of nearly 5000 in one of America’s least churched cities filled with young horny people this really bummed me out. Just this week a young man who claims to be a Christian and knows his Bible pretty well asked if he could have anal sex with lots of young men because he liked the orgasms. Had I known McLaren was issuing a Brokeback injunction I would have scheduled an appointment with him somewhere between 2011-2016.

Lastly, for the next 5-10 years you are hereby required to white out 1 Peter 3:15 which says “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” from your Bible until further notice from McLaren because the religious right forget the gentleness and respect part and the religious left forgot the answer the question part. Subsequently, a task force will be commissioned to have a conversation about all of this at a labyrinth to be named later. Once consensus is reached a finger painting will be commissioned on the Emergent web site as the official doctrinal position.

...more

We ought not be naive with regard to Brian McLaren’s invitation to Lambeth (if the rumor is true). He will be there to tell the assembled bishops just how hazy, foggy, undefined, and ultimately, unresolvable the question of homosexual behavior really is and why nothing ought to be done until at least 2016.

Here, finally, is my favorite analysis of the emerging church.

UPDATE: McClaren confirms. He’s a “great admirer” of the ABC and says he can’t wait to speak to the bishops about, “evangelism/disciple-making”. Oh, and he seems also to be a fan of a blog called “Anglimergent” from the Diocese of Olympia


65 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

With all the great minds that Anglicanism still possesses . . . and ++Rowan (perhaps) invites McLaren.  *sigh*

[1] Posted by Newbie Anglican on 05-14-2008 at 07:19 AM • top

There is an excellent new book, released last month, that critiques the “emergent church” crowd and and McLaren in particular: Why We’re Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be
Very readable as a guide to what’s right and what’s wrong in the latest theological fad.
-RedHatRob

[2] Posted by RedHatRob on 05-14-2008 at 07:26 AM • top

I keep waiting for Mark Driscoll to write a book entitled, A new Kind of Christian Leader.  Mark has the theology Cramner would be proud of, and a passion for Jesus the entire church in North America could use a shot of.  When a 30 something pastor in Seattle can preach for a solid hour week after week on subjects like doctrine, to a growing audience of thousands in one of the most pagan cities in North America, I’d say the church ought to take real good notes.  Frankly, if you could take all of the good theology of Anglicanism and trade in the Jedi Knight costumes (Mark’s observation, not mine), add a passion for making Jesus known, growing apostolic leaders and planting churches, then you’ve got Mars Hill Church (can anyone say, Church?).  If anybody should be speaking at Lambeth, it’s Mark Driscoll, but I am afraid his words to North American Anglicanism would be far more harsh than his critique of the dark side of the Emergent Church movement.

[3] Posted by justice1 on 05-14-2008 at 07:34 AM • top

Hey Mclaren, STOP TALKING!!  God spoke on this issue, and there isn’t anything left to talk about.  God promises to “spit out” people like you, who are “lukewarm” about everything…all you are doing is intentially “muddying the waters”.  Buzz off!!

Rowan - are you out of you mind inviting this guy to speak?  How about having Iker speak - at least we would have some clue as to what he is saying!  Do you get confused when Jesus speaks - seems to me His message is clear…shouldn’t we always stive to speak in a clear and transparent way too??

[4] Posted by B. Hunter on 05-14-2008 at 08:15 AM • top

Very disappointing if true. I loath Brian MacLaren and he is just another run of the mill revisionist, spreading the tired,failed ideas of liberal mainline Protestantism into the Evangelical world. That link with the posters is awesome and devastating true, they say everything about the emergents in a clear way, well done. I am friends with some people captivated by this Emerging church crap and have repeated pointed out that the Emergents sound like the heretics in TEC. In fact Rob Bell an Emergent bigwig was approvingly cited by a TEC cleric in sermon at the Cathedral here in Minnesota. The Emergents are TEC approved.MacLaren has taught at the National Cathedral.

The only Emergent leader worth a damn is Mark Driscoll who as of late has moved in a Reformed direction and has forged links with worthwhile people like Pastor John Piper of Bethlehem Baptist. Most Emergents I know, do theology the way they do, because they are looking for loopholes for things like homosex or living with your girlfriend before marriage,etc. Most are from Evangelical backgrounds and seem to think apostasy is like something new and cool, when all they are is liberal Protestianism 2.0 with cooler hair.Most are arrogant,ignorant little unteachable jerks who want a God in their own image and taht affrims their desires,prejudices and preferrences. When Emergents want to see their real God, they just need to look in the mirror. When I rejected my more conventional Evangelical upbringing, I could have very well been one of these people, but some how ended up as a very conservative Anglo-Catholic. Thank God, I was spared from ever liking this rot. And shame on Lambeth for inviting that clown MacLaren (if true) there are soooo many better people to invite. If they needed foggy ,obstifucation,they have ++Rowan.

[5] Posted by Anglo-Catholic-Jihadi on 05-14-2008 at 08:16 AM • top

I can come up with a pretty long list of situations us sinful humans can present that would create “pastoral ramifications [that] are staggeringly complex.”  Maybe we ought to suspend the Church’s teaching on the lot of them for 5 or 10 years.

[6] Posted by Phil on 05-14-2008 at 08:21 AM • top

Here’s an even more radical idea: Could we just suspend CHANGES in the church’s teaching on complex sinful situations for 5 or 10 years?

The idea that after 2000 years of shepherding the flock, the church still hasn’t figured out what to say about these “complex situations” is risible.
-RedHatRob

[7] Posted by RedHatRob on 05-14-2008 at 08:27 AM • top

If Rev. MacLaren is reading this, I’d like to gently point out that TEC engaged in respectful listening for 30 years.  Now we are dealing with:
1/08 [url=“http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/8199/
“>Hindu-Christian interfaith service</a>
1/08 <a >Buddhist mandala constructed at Philadelphia cathedral</a>
1/08 <a >Native American smudgers at bishop consecration</a>
12/07 <a > “Trans-Spirituality, Trans-Gender, Trans-Spirit, and Transforming”</a> workshop offered by Oasis, Newark
12/07 Sacramento cathedral hosts <a ]Tibetan Buddhists [/url] to construct mandala and hold Medicine Buddha Healing Ceremony
12/07 Seattle parish offers astrology workshop
10/07 [url=“http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/6788/#127554
“]Sufi dance[/url] taught in Seattle cathedral
9/07 Navajo teachers and medicine men help with a Navajo blessing ceremony during consecration of bishop
6/07 Interfaith baptism in Newark (Muslim and Jewish prayers added to Christian liturgy)
6/07 Episcopal priest in Seattle announces she is a Muslim.
5/07 A liberal Episcopal layman/ordained Sufi leads Sufi healing circle meetings at St. Philip’s Cathedral, Atlanta, GA
4/07 A copyrighted Liturgy of Invitation was celebrated by the Episcopal Committee on Science, Techology, and Faith.  Readings included antitheistic philosophy.  (Not on SF.)
9/06 A Tibetan Buddhist lama leads a guided meditation for EDS seminarians & faculty.
5/06 Episcopal Bookstore offers pagan book Love Potions for sale online.
4/06 Wiccan priest/Episcopal layman surfaces, having had essays published on the Oasis blog and Father Jake’s blog and Louie Crew’s blog.
4/05 Two<a > Druid</a>/Episcopal priests exposed in Pennsylvania.
5/04 A transgender shaman/pagan priest and a witch are featured speakers at a conference partly sponsored by the Episcopal diocese of Michigan GLBT outreach group
1/95 <a >Gaia mass</a> in Grace Cathedral, San Francisco

[8] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 05-14-2008 at 08:33 AM • top

“Complex Situation” = “We-don’t-like-what-scripture-says-and-don’t-like-being-told-no”.  That’s it. 

Whenever you see this phrase, realize that “Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking some one to devour” (1 Peter 5:6-8).  Satan is a deceiver and a liar.  If he can “keep the conversation going” then the door is still open and the possibility exists his agenda will move forward.

So, CLOSE THE DOOR!  JUST SAY NO!  GOD HAS SPOKEN - CHOOSE THIS DAY WHO YOU WILL SERVE AND OBEY!!

[9] Posted by B. Hunter on 05-14-2008 at 08:35 AM • top

Jill, thank you for that chronology (with links even!) of the Episcopal looney left.

David Virtue has a video at his site, and I was struck by his comment that the non-invitation of VGR was the best thing that could happen to Gene. Instead of having to sit through boring indaba groups, he can be outside mugging in front of cameras, having more time to bewail his victimness.

Now we have this McClaren chap. He fits rather well into Rowan Williams’ designs to dither. Hmm, no decision for five years. And if after five years, the communion still wants to uphold what we decided 10 years ago in Lambeth 1.10, we can declare another five year moratorium! Bloody brilliant.

[10] Posted by robroy on 05-14-2008 at 08:48 AM • top

Fr. Kennedy: “McLaren is absolutely correct about the dignity, gentleness and respect that we must necessarily exhibit toward those living in sinful relationships…”

Yes. Like the big hoo ha that had your knickers in a knot last year over the wearing of rainbow pins/sashes/hats/whatevers and the fact that you would refuse them Communion… Was that an expression of dignity, gentleness, and respect?

Like the comments of B. Hunter herein?

Like your rants toward That Kaeton Woman?

Sigh. Get consistent, Fr. Kennedy.

[11] Posted by PadreWayne on 05-14-2008 at 08:52 AM • top

Thanks Padrewayne:

“Like the big hoo ha that had your knickers in a knot last year over the wearing of rainbow pins/sashes/hats/whatevers and the fact that you would refuse them Communion… Was that an expression of dignity, gentleness, and respect?”

Absolutely, I would never consciously allow people publicly proclaiming that they defiantly and unrepentantly engage in sexual immorality or those who defiantly and unrepentantly lead them and encourage them to do so to harm their own souls or to blaspheme against the body of Christ by partaking in Communion after having perjured themselves at the confession.

[12] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 05-14-2008 at 08:58 AM • top

”...no position has yet won our confidence so that we can say “it seems good to the Holy Spirit and us.”

The more dreck like this I read, the more I am drawn to the bumper sticker one sees on a lot of pickups around here:
GOD SAID IT-
I BELIEVE IT-
THAT SETTLES IT!

[13] Posted by The Pilgrim on 05-14-2008 at 09:08 AM • top

Agreed Pilgrim although I think I’d replace the middle proposition

[14] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 05-14-2008 at 09:24 AM • top

#13 - Gee Matt, you sound kinda serious about this church stuff. wink

[15] Posted by Festivus on 05-14-2008 at 09:30 AM • top

It is amazing to me that the revisionist left starts lobbing grenades of “Was that an expression of dignity, gentleness, and respect?” and make claims that we on the orthodox right are “mean”, “non-inclusive”, “not practicing the Great Command of Love One Another as I have Loved You”! Then proceed to epouse their very accusations right onto us as if they have the exclusive right to judge what we say and what we think as if they have just right to do so. But, heaven forbid any orthodox conseervative should be able to do the same! I love you so much PadreWayne that I don’t want to see you get stuck in thoughts and actions of denial and sin. I want the same things for you as oour Lord God does. To be transformed into what He sees for you and not leave you in the same sinful state. I would hope you would want the same for me? But, maybe not it seems. It appears that you would want me and many like me to be transformed into your image not the image that God has for me, but rather the image you have for humanity. That’s not how it works and I pray everyday for all of humanity to be opened and enlightened by God the Father through Jesus Christ His Risen Son, and be empowered in His love and transformed by the convictions of the Holy Spirit. That is my prayer for you as well as myself.

[16] Posted by TLDillon on 05-14-2008 at 09:33 AM • top

It’s going to be a very long summer at Kent.
Intercessor

[17] Posted by Intercessor on 05-14-2008 at 09:45 AM • top

Just looked at brianmclaren.net—Lambeth is on his July calendar.  The title of his traveling conference presentations is “Everything Must Change” tour.

[18] Posted by TXFriend on 05-14-2008 at 09:52 AM • top

I get that way after a good bowl of chili.  I’d hate to have to sit in that pheew, however.

[19] Posted by Moot on 05-14-2008 at 10:04 AM • top

Let’s test Rev. Mclaren’s suggestion in the 1st C context. Paul writes a letter with practical teaching based on revealed truths and the church waits for a decade to determine if they will accept or reject the teaching.

Likely outcomes would be:
- Churches continue to struggle with the “presenting issues” of their day
- Instead of living in unity, churches continue to live with factions and division
- The church loses its ability to witness since unity is gone and there is no consistent message to the world
- The churches fail to grow and perhaps even lose members during times of persecution as there is no Gospel to rally around
- The epistles are not shared and passed around, denying later generations the basis of the NT canon
- Christianity continues as an oral tradition, even after the apostles and first hand witnesses begin to die off
- Orthodox doctrine never develops into a coherent set of assertions
- The entire course of church history is changed from there

It is utter foolishness to suggest putting the teachings of the Scriptures on hold. From the 1st C through to today we can plainly see examples where churches blow themselves up doing exactly what Rev. McClaren suggests. In contrast we see a stead line of churches who cling to Christ and the NT teachings and the results are much better.

[20] Posted by texex on 05-14-2008 at 10:15 AM • top

McLaren’s pastoral care in the CT article is an example of ‘relationship trumps truth’ and ‘acceptance/affirmation equals love’ and possibly affirms the secular and spiritually blind, sick church (Spong et al) idea that ‘sex is value neutral’ and sexual abstinence is pathology.
When the Church substitutes (as McLaren did in the Christianity Today article) truth for false compassion, massaging egos and building self esteem, affirms and accepts sin, the Church becomes and instrument of death and an unfaithful witness. 

The Church must hold up the Cross and the Word without equivocation or apology.  Yes, gently but firmly.  Yes, with tears of compassion and of joy, but knowing without a doubt about the freedom, victory, peace and joy that comes with the resurrected new life when flesh and sin are crucified.

When society, parents, teachers AND the Church equivocate, deny, discount and distort the truth and the image of God, strongholds of hell and the disorder and conflict of ambivalence and relativity are built and reign in the human soul(mind, will, emotions). 

The mind not anchored in God, not oriented toward God, cannot be at peace, but is thrown around by argument, circumstances, one’s own desires.  Identity and well-being fluctuate, waxing and waning on the tides of opinion, cut from its proper moorings and remains immature and ill-formed. 
Homosexuality is such a disorientation and distortion of identity…a rebellion against the image and a denial of truth of God. (Romans 1)

I recommend reading Dallas Willard instead of McLaren.

[21] Posted by Theodora on 05-14-2008 at 10:26 AM • top

#12 Really Wayne, Matt was talking about “those living in sinful relationships” not “false teachers”.

Sigh. Forget TEC principles of hermeneutics. Learn to read, Wayne.

[22] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 05-14-2008 at 10:37 AM • top

I read A Generous Orthodoxy a few years ago, at the suggestion of my bishop.  I thought that the first four or five pages were great, and I expected a wonderful book.

But the book plunged off a cliff by the end of the first chapter.  As McLaren described each of the various theologies/denominations he was reflecting on, it became apparent that he actually knew nothing about what he was seeking to talk about.

As above, A Generous Orthodoxy is neither.

[23] Posted by AnglicanXn on 05-14-2008 at 10:50 AM • top

McLaren’s CV:

Brian McLaren graduated from the University of Maryland, College Park with degrees in English (BA, summa cum laude, 1978, and MA, 1981). His academic interests include medieval drama, romantic poets, modern philosophical literature, and the novels of Dr. Walker Percy. He is also a musician and songwriter.

After several years of teaching English and consulting in higher education, he left academia in 1986 to become the founding pastor of Cedar Ridge Community Church, a nondenominational church in the Baltimore-Washington region. The church has grown to involve several hundred people, many of whom were previously unchurched.  In 2004 he was awarded an honorary Doctor of Divinity from the Carey Theological Seminary in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

No theology studies.

[24] Posted by Theodora on 05-14-2008 at 10:55 AM • top

Although I don’t “loathe” McLaren, he does strike me as the very definition of a dilettante when it comes to things theological.  His best ideas (and he is not infrequently on target) are found much more coherently elsewhere (e.g., Wright, Newbigin), and his worst ideas are just regrettably shallow.  Then the writing style is so patronizing and smug (I was ready to strangle all-knowing Neo in New Kind of Christian ).  He has gained great audience with evangelicals as a provocateur and as a postmodern poseur, but I think his appeal is really an indictment on the theological unrooted shallowness of evangelicalism.

That said, he would be better than many who could be invited to Lambeth; he is as far as I can tell, orthodox himself, but just theologically adolescent.  I wonder if McLaren, if confronted with the train wreck of the TEC, might actually gain some clarity about what is at stake.  He is really rebelling against fundamentalism, so maybe if his rebellion could be channeled against a more worthy opponent he could accomplish something for the cause.

[25] Posted by Occasional Reader on 05-14-2008 at 10:55 AM • top

As if tec had “principles of hermeneutics!”

[26] Posted by Nikolaus on 05-14-2008 at 10:56 AM • top

AnglicanXn, ditto.  I found Generous Orthodoxy to be neither Generous nor Orthodox. Rather than being generous, it is thin gruel, shallow, vapid, unsubstantial, devoid of the prodigious overwhelming nourishment offered by God and attested to for thousands of years.  It is not orthodox because it is not Orthodox.  After I read McLaren, I read Thomas Oden’s Rebirth of Orthodoxy and felt much better.

[27] Posted by Chazaq on 05-14-2008 at 11:03 AM • top

Fr. Kennedy, your argument is so very judgmental and so very full of self-assurance (to the point, I believe, of arrogance). To even imagine that you would refuse me The Sacrament is painful to the extreme—and so sad. And, IMHO, so un-Christlike. But…we went through all that on that thread.

As to the bumper sticker above, it indicates a total lack of belief that God has given us minds to think and hearts to reflect. It indicates a denial of the continual self-revelation of God through Scripture and the Holy Spirit. It assumes some sort of divine dictation to a disinterested (in the sense of uninvolved) stenographer.

Every line of Scripture is theology. Every line of Scripture is interpretation. Every translation of every line is both theology and interpretation. If this were not true, why would we have had councils wrestling with concepts of the Trinity, ecclesiology, and sacrament? “Well, this is what I think this passage means.” “Well, I read it this way.” That’s the way the conversations flowed—and that is the way a healthy, God-blessed conversation should continue.

[28] Posted by PadreWayne on 05-14-2008 at 11:11 AM • top

PadreWayne - you don’t understand that it is out of love that Matt would refuse you communion.  As a lay person it would be out of love that I would not commune with you or take communion from you.

[29] Posted by Harry Edmon on 05-14-2008 at 11:18 AM • top

Oh, yeah, I feel the love, Harry Edmon. It chills me to the very heart.

[30] Posted by PadreWayne on 05-14-2008 at 11:21 AM • top

Top 10 headlines ever.  Well done Fr. K.  I’m howling (and this stuff deserves a good chuckle).  I typically count on Greg for this kind of Christopher Johnson-inspired wit, but here you come all of a sudden w/ your headline A-game.  Thanks.

[31] Posted by sandiegoanglicans.com on 05-14-2008 at 11:30 AM • top

RE: “Yes. Like the big hoo ha that had your knickers in a knot last year over the wearing of rainbow pins/sashes/hats/whatevers and the fact that you would refuse them Communion… Was that an expression of dignity, gentleness, and respect?”

I’m not aware that Matt would allow any person communion who is engaged in sinful actions and proudly proclaiming that fact.  Unless . . . you’d prefer that he treat those engaging in same-gender sexual activity and proudly proclaiming those actions differently from other sinners who are proudly proclaiming their actions.

Oh yeh . . . you would.  ; > )

RE: “Like your rants toward That Kaeton Woman?”

I believe that the general striking indifference shown towards EK belies what you are saying.  The only time I recall any ranting was when she was, you know, accusing Matt’s wife of child abuse and threatening them with DSS. 

But now that she’s stopped that—for now—I have no clue as to what she is posting, doing, saying, thinking, or pretty much anything.  In other words—I have as much knowledge of or interest in her as I did prior to the whole DSS threats drama.  Somehow, I suspect the same is true of Greg, Matt, Jackie, and David.

[32] Posted by Sarah on 05-14-2008 at 11:31 AM • top

Brian McLaren says, “We’ll keep our ears attuned to scholars in biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology, and related fields” – in other words, human scholars mostly in fields not related to Christianity.

I invite Mr. McLaren to consider this meditation from a recent daily “Dynamis” (Orthodox):

When man alienates himself from God in his heart he usually trusts in men and in himself, for in who else can he otherwise trust when he untied his rowboat from God’s boat? Since he has already untied his rowboat from God’s boat, nothing else remains for him except to trust in his rowboat or in the rowboat of his neighbors. Weak trust, but there is no other for him! Weeping trust above the abyss of destruction, but there is no other!

But, O heaven and earth, why did man untie his rowboat from God’s boat? What happened to man that he flees from his security? What kind of calculation did he calculate when he discovered it would be better for him alone on the tempestuous waves than in the household of God and near the hem of God! With whom did he make an alliance when he breached the alliance with God? Is it with someone stronger than God? Foolishness, foolishness, foolishness!

“<u>Cursed is the man who trusts in human beings.</u>” [Jer 17:5] This, God spoke once and men have repeated this thousands of times.

[33] Posted by Phil on 05-14-2008 at 11:36 AM • top

PadreWayne - a predictable response.  At least I tried, which is all God asks of me.  No need to continue this thread, it detracts from the main point.

[34] Posted by Harry Edmon on 05-14-2008 at 11:45 AM • top

McLaren’s unscriptural and erroneous idea that human beings are ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian’ ‘folk’ (to use the ABCs word) show how his thinking is congruent with the ABCs and the homo/pansexual apologists. 
This is also the fatal Lambeth 1998 res. 1.10 compromise. 

This idea was concocted for PC apologetics/propaganda and has been hammered into the collective conscious by the pansexual agenda along with the fabrications: ‘gender’ ‘sexual identity’ and ‘sexual orientation’.

These are extrabiblical ideas that are unsupported in research.

[35] Posted by Floridian on 05-14-2008 at 12:20 PM • top

After all, many important issues in church history took centuries to figure out.

Yeah, but this isn’t one of them—it’s been figured out and perfectly settled for way more than mere “centuries”.  Unless something happened that caused us to question our long-held biblical understanding of it, I don’t see why it needs to be re-examined.

So what might have happened?  The only thing I can think of that’s changed is that we didn’t have AIDS before.  And now we do.

[36] Posted by Marty the Baptist on 05-14-2008 at 01:16 PM • top

That’s cute Terry Wayne. “That Kaeton woman.” That implies you don’t even know her. Gimmie a break. I can certainly understand why you wouldn’t want to fess up to being one of her buddies though. I mean, it bothers me even to write her name out.

[37] Posted by teddy mak on 05-14-2008 at 01:24 PM • top

Father Matt said:

#15: Agreed Pilgrim although I think I’d replace the middle proposition

Okay, with what?

[38] Posted by The Pilgrim on 05-14-2008 at 02:04 PM • top

To even imagine that you would refuse me The Sacrament is painful to the extreme—and so sad. And, IMHO, so un-Christlike.


Wow. Two thousand years of sacramantal theology dismissed—just like that.

[39] Posted by The Pilgrim on 05-14-2008 at 02:13 PM • top

It’s evidently no rumor—I caught wind of it a month-and-a-half ago.

http://anglicanaction.blogspot.com/2008/03/brian-mclaren-at-lambeth.html

[40] Posted by Ralph Webb on 05-14-2008 at 02:45 PM • top

From his blog here’s the deal on McLaren’s invitation to participate in the Lambeth Conference in July.

[41] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 05-14-2008 at 02:53 PM • top

Pilgrim, sorry, I was just nit picking, with your good post.  I remember RC Sproul talking about that bumper sticker once. He basically said that if “God says it”, then the middle proposition, “I believe it” can be removed because the matter has already been settled with the first proposition whether I believe it or not.

[42] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 05-14-2008 at 03:20 PM • top

Matt:
I thought your comment was excellent in #15, at least for me. I didn’t take it as an insult, but a gentle reminder to all of us not to make God and his truth after our own image. Something we all are guilty of…In fact, it may very well end up in a sermon. The names changed to protect the innocent, of course…

[43] Posted by FrVan on 05-14-2008 at 03:32 PM • top

PadreWayne,
You and I both would be refused Communion at a Roman Catholic Church since we are not Roman Catholic, so are you sayingthat their refusal to administer us communion is un-Christian like?

[44] Posted by TLDillon on 05-14-2008 at 05:17 PM • top

Greg, to answer your question: yes, he had been invited to Lambeth.

[45] Posted by Tory on 05-14-2008 at 05:43 PM • top

Mark Driscoll speaking at Lambeth - now that would be something, RedHatRob (#2)- one of the funniest things I’ve heard in ages. It would be great for the Westerners, but not really necessary for the global south people - they already speak with the same clarity, conviction and commitment to the lost that Driscoll does - the same Spirit is clearly at work in both.

[46] Posted by Rob Miller on 05-14-2008 at 07:12 PM • top

This might not be the best place to post this but just read this and thought it worth putting out there. Maybe Greg, Jackie, or Sarah might give it it’s own thread….

Presiding Bishop to address the media on Lambeth Conference
[Episcopal News Service] Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori will address members of the media about the Lambeth Conference on Tuesday,May 20 in a live webcast at the Episcopal Church Center, 815 Second
Ave., New York City. The webcast will begin at 2 p.m. Eastern time (1 p.m. Central, noon Mountain, 11 a.m. Pacific).
Joining the Presiding Bishop will be the Rev. Dr. Ian Douglas of Episcopal Divinity School, who is a member of the Lambeth Conference Design Group.
All are welcome to view the live webcast, which will be available through a direct link on the homepage of Episcopal Church website. Questions, however, will be accepted only from credentialed media. The Lambeth Conference will be the only topic discussed at this event.

Full story: http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_97098_ENG_HTM.htm

[47] Posted by TLDillon on 05-14-2008 at 08:53 PM • top

The June-July 2008 issue of First Things has this to say (p. 71):

Publishers Weekly likes Finding Our Way Again by Brian McLaren, a leading proponent of the “emergent church” movement. “The former English teacher has a gift for the pithy phrase that nails a concept: ‘faithing our practices’ is seeing the sacred value of everyday activities, for example.”  Right.  Consider also the benefits of truthing our book evaluations. . . .

[48] Posted by Mike Watson on 05-14-2008 at 10:01 PM • top

#43 Thanks Father, makes sense.

[49] Posted by The Pilgrim on 05-15-2008 at 03:02 AM • top

31 PadreWayne
If you act out of love, you will receive it back.
The tenor of your posts is unlikely to be mistaken for loving kindness and is unworthy of the vows you have taken.

[50] Posted by Anvil on 05-15-2008 at 07:55 AM • top

I have this image of Mark Driscoll at Lambeth introducing himself to the bishops as a thirty-something male lesbian and then letting fly a few choice cuss words along with some salty and strong language.

The next scene is the medics and ambulance crews trying to cut through the riot around Gene Robinson’s telecommentary to get inside to revive a significant bunch of purple shirts who have fainted to floor or lost control of various bodily functions.

While at the same time Jack Iker and Bob Duncan walk calmly over the fallen up to the podium to offer their blessings and prayers for Mark.

Unfortunately it will be McLaren whose nuanced cloud of unknowing won’t cut through the fog of unthinking indaba ink.

[51] Posted by Rom 1:16 on 05-15-2008 at 08:23 AM • top

The resemblance between MacLaren’s theology and that say PadreWayne is interesting. PadreWayne for example views as judgemental and demeaning any attempt by a loving brother or sister in Christ to point out sins which are damaging to himself and others around him. McLaren also struggles with identifying sin and addressing it in a pastoral context. In spite of some very obvious scriptural calls to do this very thing for the health and wellbeing of the body of Christ. But then again, if it says something we don’t like it either is culturally emmeshed and therefore doesn’t apply, or must be quoted out of context and therefore subject to interpretation. The arrogance of the underlying metamessage of “I demand you love me as me the way I want to be loved” is as culturally iconic of of our current sociopathy as anything else posted thus far. The idea that you can’t love me and be critical of my behavior takes me back to the early days of my son’s early ego-centric adolescence - thanks be to God he is rapidly outgrowing that phase. WOuld that the good padre and McLaren would do likewise.

[52] Posted by masternav on 05-15-2008 at 08:59 AM • top

It’s not a rumor.

[53] Posted by Susan Russell on 05-15-2008 at 09:52 AM • top

Brian McLaren’s occasional contributions at Sojourner’s blog God’s Politics led me to the conclusion that mystics should never write about public policy.  Now after reading this, I’m open to a five-year moratorium on mysticism.

Wolverine

[54] Posted by Wolverine on 05-15-2008 at 01:10 PM • top

I don’t see what is so very bad about what McLaren wrote.
Sounds sane, humane and lovingly pastoral.

I really wonder what would happen in the church was pastored exclusively by the people who are so sure about this question.

I think a little reflection on the themes of Pasternak’s
Doctor Zhivago would be edifying. At one point, disucssing the Revolution with an ardent Bolshevik, Yuri says,  “It is marvelous what you are doing: cutting injustice out like a cancer. But somebody has to keep the patient alive during the operation.

Knowing what is right is not enough.  Someone has, with humility and care, to pay attention to the actual persons who are coming in our doors. A little attention and listening would be helpful, considering that you don’t have to save the world, or uphold the right ,all by yourselves.  There is God after all, and every Pastor knows that he does not know exactly what is required all the time.

That is also the heart of a missionary.  He has it.
Mark Miller

[55] Posted by MJMiller on 05-15-2008 at 03:13 PM • top

Interesting definition of “humility” MJMiller. It is, apparently, “humble” in your opinion, to defy the clear commands of scripture and 2000 years of tradition because some people in the 21st century want to. I think, perhaps you might want to think about that a little more carefully.

[56] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 05-15-2008 at 03:26 PM • top

I think it’s an overstatement to say it took centuries to work out christian doctrine.  at the very least, he’s got to admit it took time to hammer out the trinity (we’re talking more like decades of controversy there) but not because the council participants refused to take a position.

[57] Posted by AnnieV on 05-15-2008 at 06:05 PM • top

Agreed McClaren’s unwillingness to stand firm on theological principles is very troubling.  Interestingly, the reasserter Rector of my leading reasserter parish in a very strong orthodox diocese recommended Generous Orthodoxy for reading not too long ago.  How do we explain that?  For an earler version of the emerging church/unprincipled compromise approach see the ELizabethean Settlement held up as the grand compromise between the radically opposed worldviews of Protestantism and Catholicism as the founding principle of Anglicanism. 
Matt, Sarah and Gregg, I think we need to deal with the fundamental problem of Anglicanism- the lack of a coherent sense of authority.  We will have to choose a confessional approach (you could start a PCA style church with bishops and liturgy), papal (Roman Catholic) or ultra traditionalist (Orthodox).  the via media was a bad idea back then and now.  McClaren is just the latest iteration of the via media.

[58] Posted by morningsideanglican on 05-15-2008 at 08:12 PM • top

Let us be careful here.  Emerging church has a fairly broad meaning and constituency.  I’m not a Maclaren fan myself, but one thing is clear: to engage the culture, one must understand it.

The emerging church and post-modern culture in the West are horribly selfish.  This can be seen in the undercurrent on this thread, re: refusing to serve communion to someone living in open rebellion to God.  Post-modernism isn’t interested in the ancient theologies and dogmas - it is interested in existential meaning for the individual.

The task of orthodoxy is to understand and proclaim.  Orthodoxy affirms that all of us have individual stories that connect us to God - but that the reality of Divine Revelation goes beyond the individual to the corporate.

In any case, Maclaren is the worst possible speaker for the heterodox bishops of TEC and the Anglican west.  Driscoll is indeed a much better speaker who understands the experience of the post-modern person and an efficacious means to bring Orthodoxy to transform us into the image of Jesus.

-Jim+

[59] Posted by FrJim on 05-16-2008 at 09:49 AM • top

<blockquote>but that the reality of Divine Revelation goes beyond the individual to the corporate./<blockquote>

Jim+, if I can build on your comments in #60, our personal stories and gifts are not for ourselves but for the church. My testimony is not about it me and should be shared to tell about myself. My testimony is about God’s work that happens to take place in my life and should be shared in demonstration of God’s grace. The same for spiritual gifts - they are not gifts to the individual but to the church for use in it’s building and growing.

[60] Posted by texex on 05-16-2008 at 12:15 PM • top

Wow. To think that I was hoping orthodox Bishops wouldnt attend. I should have listened to those who said something of significance would come out of Lambeth. smile

[61] Posted by Going Home on 05-18-2008 at 01:36 AM • top

You’ve got competition on the demotivation poster:

http://missionalcog.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/unity/

[62] Posted by vulcanhammer on 05-23-2008 at 07:12 AM • top

On a related note, the discussion topic at Lambeth for Thursday 31 July is, “Listening to God and each other: the bishop and human sexuality.”

On July 30, the notorious Peterson Toscano (http://www.petersontoscano.com/Schedule) will “...[share] his spiritual journey, liberally sprinkled with excerpts from his play, Doin’ Time in the Homo No Mo Halfway House which tells how he survived the ex-gay movement.” This will be held at the Keynes Lecture Hall at the University of Kent, Canterbury, sponsored by the “Lesbian Gay Christian Movement.” It will be repeated on July 31.

Obviously, a coincidence.

[63] Posted by Ralph on 05-30-2008 at 08:33 AM • top

Jill, well done.  All these dates will be up for consideration as Feast Days on the ECUSA calendar (unless they conflict with Thurgood Marshall or some such) at the next General Convention.  Don’t stop at 1995 though, the history must extend at least to the late 60’s with Bishop Pike’s “The Trinity is excess baggage”.  He can perhaps be best remembered with a day named “Ouija Board Sunday”.  Celebration of these dates will be part of a future litmus test for loyalty.

[64] Posted by nwlayman on 05-31-2008 at 09:58 AM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.