Moore, McKnight and McLaren

Scot McKnight recently saw Walk the Line, the movie on the life of Johnny Cash.  He blogged on it today (also at Touchstone's Mere Comments) with an interesting twist, that he found it curious that Russ Moore (SBTS) stands with the Man in Black while the Kentucky Baptist Convention didn't stand with a different sort of man in black, Brian McLaren. 

Russ Moore has responded.

I've read both posts a few times now.  On the one hand, I'm not sure McKnight's connections between McLaren and Cash work.  I don't know the history of how Cash was treated by SBC'rs, so I can't speak to that.  But the KBC decides who it wants to instruct them, and Cash had a different purpose altogether.  You are standing for different things when you stand for one or the other.

On the other hand, Moore's unreasonable caricatures of the EC make whatever wisdom he has on the issue hard to hear.  He writes,

The difference between Cash's sin-and-repentance authenticity and the manufactured faddish candles-and-incense "authenticity" of the "emerging church" movement is one of kind, not just degree.

and

One might also say of the repackaged liberalism of the "emerging church," everyone who wears dark turtlenecks is not a Man in Black.

I just don't get this sort of response.  Does Russ actually believe the EC is (STILL!) only a fad?  I'm not saying the EC is the church of the future, or whatever.  But I think Moore's position is a very unscholarly one.  I don't see John Hammett or Justin Taylor or Don Carson using this sort of language.  They are engaging the issues.  Sure there are faddish elements in the EC, just as there are in the SBC and everywhere else. 

But characterizing the whole this way is like saying you aren't willing to look any deeper.  It's like saying that you would rather see the EC as a big impersonal whole that you can mock rather than as real people with real faith and a real desire to know and follow Jesus.  I encourage my friend Russ to lose the rhetoric and stick to the issues.  He has a lot to add if he does.

UPDATE: Scot McKnight has posted a response to Russ Moore.

Comments

[Joe Thorn]

Wow, great restraint Steve, and good words. To be honest, I hope someone Russ respects can/will call him out on this. I found his uncharitable comments to be ignorant, which is not something I would say about most of the stuff he writes.

[Michael Foster]

His comments only fuels the "you-just-don't-get-it" sentiments that I get from every EC-type when I question their theology. Also, I put that link up for Darrin's essay on my blog.

[Steve McCoy]

Michael, that's a very helpful point. Thanks.

[Keith]

That kind of rhetoric usually strikes me as a sign of intellectual laziness or weakness or both. It doesn't seem to me to be a good reflection of the SBC for one of its more prominent theologians(and SBTS Dean!) to write that kind of a snarky post on a public forum. What kind of message does that send about what the SBC is all about?

[JM]

Yeah, I wasn't sure about the connection with Cash and McClaren either. I read "The Man Called Cash" last week. Apparently he was baptized 3 times, only one of which was by Southern Baptists (the first time). He was part of the Assembly of God later in life. He also like to have communion over the phone with his American Records producer, who I think was more of a "spiritual" seeker than an out-n-out Christian. That seems like something McLaren might do like in the "Story We Find Ourselves in". Cash was certainly eclectic in his religious practice, in some ways like emergents. Also Cash went back to pills more than once after where the movie ends. I think Cash is too complex a figure to use for a rhetorical advantage. Sorry so long. I've been looking for a way to put my new found Cash knowledge to work :)

[Steve McCoy]

Thanks for the info JM. I've been thinking of a Cash bio sometime soon.

[Scot McKnight]

Steve,
Thanks for this. Oddly enough, I saw the same things -- and gave him the same point. I stretched the connection, but the generic connection is there: one for morals, the other for theology.

I've posted a review, and am keen to get you and some of your readers to comment on my blog about the response.

[Scott Lamb]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't McKnight the one who entered McLaren into the conversation? I think that was the point of error. As Moore pointed out, the analogy broke down quickly.

And why should it not have been "public" when the whole thing is public?

I thought McKnight's analogy was poor and provocative, and Moore's response was warranted and provocative.

But why come to the defense of MacLaren anyway?

[Rick Bennett]

sadly this tone has become commonplace among many of the academic leaders of the SBC.

Witness the common tone and language used by SBC president Al Mohler. He is condescending and attakcs people's character, insults their intellect and name-calls. He continually dismisses those he disagrees with.

Moore is learning it from the master.

[Rick Bennett]

scott,

why come to moore's defense and then ask Scott why he comes to mclaren's defense?

[Scott Lamb]

Rick,
Two reasons:
1. To use schoolyard terms, "McKnight started it." He is the one who entered MacLaren into the picture while giving criticism of Moore's post. I think the burden of having a smack-down good argument is the one who started the thread in the first place.

2. Why defend Moore over MacLaren? Orthodoxy

[JM]

I like Scot's response to Moore. He admits that he stretched the analogy. He actually admits it. In my experience, that's not a typical response you would see from the SBC people. They usually say something like "I'm more convinced now that I am right than previously". They never admit fault. I think McKnight's big point was excellent.

[Scot McKnight]

Scott Lamb,
Indeed, I did bring in McLaren, and I did so because I thought the treatment of Johnny Cash and McLaren was analogous. The fact of the matter is this: it is. I do not think it is one-to-one, and I can be faulted for an analogy that breaks down.

First, in spite of Moore says, Johnny Cash was not well liked in his heyday by the SBC people, esp the conservative side (which is now in the ruling seats). (A close SBC friend e-mailed me just that comment last night.)

Second, he now embraces the Man in Black. (I would add here that I'm not sure he knows the person he's embracing.)

Third, McLaren is not well liked in the SBC, esp among the conservatives.

It is a logical point of general category (Man in Black -- representing uncommon, unacceptable, mysterious clothing -- and Johnny had other reasons, to be sure) with two specific instances: Cash as a person with moral issues (he never completely got over them either) and McLaren with theological ones (Moore is willing call him a "false teacher"). General (a not trustable person who claims to be a Christian) to specific (one moral, one theological).

So, what is stretching is to apply the Man in Black image to a writer (I don't consider McLaren a theologian properly) by shifting it from Cash to McLaren. There is still a logical connection.

I'm willing, as someone here has said, to say I stretched it but that is only because the issue with McLaren is not the same -- I see the issue to be similar though: an unwillingness for the SBC to stand with or stand behind or to endorse someone. (That's the generic issue.)

I'll not get into discussing here or anywhere the theology of Brian McLaren, mostly because I don't see Brian that way: I see him as deliberately provocative, a stirrer of the pot, and one who has his finger on lots of issues that concerns lots of postmoderns who are connected to or no longer connected to the Church.

I had a person in my office yesterday: hadn't been to church in 2 years; loves the Lord but is struggling with a gospel that is not changing the lives of those who claim to believe it; thinks the arrogance of "I'm going to heaven, I can do what I want" is displeasing to God; wants to find a church where the kingdom gospel is on display and wants to be part of it.

That, friends, is the person to whom McLaren is writing. And here's the point: the overt rhetoric that calls McLaren a false teacher makes these folks like McLaren more, and it doesn't help the traditionalists to gain a hearing with millions (Barna may have that number close to right at 20 million) who are seeking for a more profound display of the gospel, for a more incarnated approach to the message of the Bible.

[Justin Taylor]

A couple of thoughts if I may.

1) Steve, are you sure you are representing Moore correctly in this? He called "candles and incense" faddish. He didn't say the ECM was a "fad." Perhaps I'm making too fine a distinction here, but I think one could agree with the former and disagree with the latter. (That would be my view.)

2) Scot, your response to the issue of McLaren being a false teacher seems purely pragmatic: (1) it makes folks like McLaren more, and (2) it doesn't help the traditionalists gain a hearing. Both of those, however, are irrelevant to the issue of whether or not McLaren is truly a false teacher--aren't they?

Despite all the Cash analysis and analogies, I think that this is really the heart of the dispute: is McLaren a "brother" (a la McKnight) or a "false teacher" (a la Moore).

JT

[Scot McKnight]

JT,
You are not being fair to what I said: what I said was that McLaren is reaching an audience that is going to be missed by many if they do not recognize the issues that concern them. Calling him a false teacher is not the way to get the job done or reach that audience.

Calling my argument "pure pragmatic" is heated rhetoric, because it is not that: it comes from a person who is clearly theological, who clearly disagrees and agrees with both McLaren and Moore, and it is unfair to resort to that kind of rhetoric to describe what I am doing.

If pragmatics concerns praxis, and how we reach a generation that is fading from church attendance, then I'll be the first in line to learn how better to reach that generation with the gospel -- and so will you. That is the sort of pragmatics that drives me, friend. You, too, I suppose.

I would use "false teacher" only for "heresy" as defined by HOJ Brown. Wouldn't you? (By the way, yes, I'd agree that my points do not deal with Brian as a "false teacher" nor was I trying to.) I was talking about the rhetoric being used for him and its impact.

[Scot McKnight]

Now, if I may, let's get back to what I said in the original post:

My point, if I understand it aright, is that the SBC could do better and that the emerging movement is doing better with dealing with stories of authenticity that are not all that clean. What Yaconelli called "messy spirituality." I happen to think that's a pretty important point.

[Steve McCoy]

Whose point are we discussing? Some are talking about whether McLaren is a false teacher, I was talking about honest dialogue with those we disagree with.

If Moore thinks McLaren is a heretic, that's fine. Get on the issues and deal with them.

But he shouldn't say things like, "The difference between Cash's sin-and-repentance authenticity and the manufactured faddish candles-and-incense "authenticity" of the "emerging church" movement is one of kind, not just degree." He is not just speaking against what is taught by McLaren, but throwing down highly charged and overstated rhetoric that is an insult to many who are actually more conservative and honestly trying to follow Christ.

While I'm happy to disagree with much of what I read from guys like McLaren and others, this sort of flamethrowing just makes it worse.

And JT, I think you have it wrong. It's not about the fad (though he has made that point before), but about his throw-down against the authenticity of the movement. I think that's uncalled for.

[Matt]

If you guys are going to refer to "pure pragmatic" as "heated rhetoric," how do you ever plan to have a decent discussion? That's not being mean.

Good grief.

[Scot McKnight]

Matt,
Fair enough: but it is dismissive to an argument to say that it is purely pragmatic.

Steve,
Thanks for the comment.

[Scot McKnight]

So, in the tone of your statement, Steve, I'll say this:

In order to criticize a movement, you must first understand it as sympathetically as possible, and at least consider how that movement describes itself. I think Moore fails at this point. Agreed?

[Bob Robinson]

Having read this thread, I'd have to agree with Rick Bennett. What happens in SBC circles is that they learn how to debate from their leadership. Albert Mohler uses the same kind of caracaturing rhetoric when he attacks people as we saw here from Moore. Until there is a change toward more charitable dialogue among SBC leadership (which includes an openness to hear opposing opinions without attacking), we will continue to see this kind of thing from the "Mohler-want-to-bes," of the younger leaders in the SBC as well.

I praise God for people like Steve McCoy--willing to engage at deeper levels and to be charitable as he does so.
Keep up the good work, Steve!

[Cody Walton]

The greatest violation I have seen in the leadership of my own convention is a lack of actual study of the various authors and voices within the emerging church. Much of the rhetoric that is thrown out is a response based on secondary opinions or secondhand resources. I am disappointed that many continue to speak out against people they have not read. My hope for the SBC is that we will have leaders who will do their homework and stop the ignorant criticisms.

[Steve McCoy]

Cody, Bob, Scot et al, that's the point I want to make. I can't seem to say this enough. I can't seem to get Mohler, Moore, or most anyone else to hear this. I think the way forward is to stop scolding, mocking, and slamming and engage the issues.

Russ came on here and commented a week or two ago about the Christmas albums I liked. I wish he would come here, or McKnight's blog, or whatever and actually engage the issues. I would provide a forum for him to say whatever he likes. I do think he has real criticism that needs to be heard and engaged, but he seems content to throw out jabs rather than have real dialogue.

Russ, I'm quite sure you or a SBTS student who works for you will read this. As a friend, and as one who values and agrees with most of your theological positions, I offer the opportunity to discuss the EC with McKnight on one of my blogs. What a tremendous opportunity to hear from a two guys who love Christ and the Church and who could in a short time cut through the rhetoric on both sides and make some headway. The offer is open.

My email is
pastorsteve [at] gmail [dot] com.

[Luke]

I don't know what leaders you're talking about, but Mohler and Moore cannot be characterized as those who evince a "lack of actual study" of the EC or just about any other topic. Mohler has a written a lengthly review of Maclaren's A Generous Orthodoxy and a two-part commentary on the EC in general. As for his tone, I would say that there is a time for "charitable dialogue" and there is time for clear criticism. But then again I think many of the critics of Moore and Mohler in this thread have that distinction down pretty well.

[Scot McKnight]

Luke,

Thanks for this, but here's the point: What I read in Mohler led me to believe he has not done his homework, and I don't know how many times it has to be said that the Emerging movement cannot be narrowed down to a postmodernist epistemology nor can it be limited to Brian McLaren. I don't like Carson's equation of McLaren (with a limited others like him) with the Emerging movement, but I wouldn't say Carson's critique of epistemology is wrong either. But, I think he misses the target because the emerging issues are much bigger and broader.

The reason folks like me have to keep saying this is not, in fact, because the Emerging movement is indefinable, though it is not simple, but because its critics refuse to listen to fair description of the movement.

Everyone now must read Gibbs and Bolger, and when they do they will have a handle on the movement. These two folks spent five years studying the movement.

[Paul]

Luke, if they (Mohler, Moore, etc.) have done their homework then they are either discounting the many voices available within the EC who do not have positions they (Mohler, Moore, etc.) claim they have (see, for instance, Andrew Jones along with the writers who have had much influence on emergent leaders like Leslie Newbigin, N. T. Wright, Dallas Willard, etc.) or they are intentionally misrepresenting those positions. One thing is clear: they are not engaging people like Scot McKnight, John Frye or this blog. All three of those have posted rather extensively on emergent topics and those posts are worlds apart from the "dark turtlenecks and candles" caricature that is being presented.

[Ochuk]

I find this to be a strange controversy to say the least. Johnny Cash a poster boy for the SBC and broader evangelicalism? Promoting that seems like something a stereotypical Emergent would do with Bono. But none of that especially matters, because both those character wouldn't be so sanguine about being poster boys of religious factions to begin with. Moreover, McLaren is hardly in the same category as Cash.

At any rate, I am somewhat surprised by Moore's candid admission that McLaren is a "false teacher." I have never seen that kind of language before from a conservative theological leader who usually reserve it people like John Spong. Even Greg Boyd and John Sanders cut the muster on this one (at least I have never heard either of those two described as such).

Let's face some hard facts: people don't like the emerging church because they don't like McLaren. This where I find myself struggling with it, and McLaren would agree: He does not represent the EC. There are too many good people in the EC to be associated with the kind of beliefs he espouses. It is commonplace now to hear the late Stanley J. Grenz's work be spoken of as if it were synonymous with McLaren's. Having read both their work, however, I must say that is a shame.

There may be some tightly nuanced magnum opuses out there defining the EC, but as long as McLaren is publishing at the rate he is, all that he says will continue to be considered credo of the EC. The EC wasn't quite as controversial before A Generous Orthodoxy was published, which most see (reasonably) as embodying EC values. My hope is that we can return to those days when the most oinionated of voices were not the loudest.

[John Frye]

I am not SBC but am a friend of Scot McKnight. If indeed the SBC has been taken over by the "conservative" wing of its big tent, then you have to factor in SBC constituency (read money) in Mohler's and Moore's comments. Of course as an SBC outsider I could be very wrong; and if I am, forgive me. Whether or not Brian McLaren, M-c-L-a-r-e-n, is "a false teacher" (it must be nice to have the power to throw that phrase around), he certainly is great at sparking a conversation that even brings in opponents of what? The Emerging Conversation. If we take Scot McKnight's lead and dethrone Brian McLaren as a theologian and accept him as a provocative and creative pastoral story-teller, then we can give him a place in our lives he deserves without having to agree with everything he says or writes. Gibbs and Bolger's book is a must read. It takes the "heat" off Brian.

[Greg McRitchie]

Read money???? Are you saying that Russ Moore only said what he did for money John? Is that how charity and generosity look to you? Why not look at Mohler and Moore as provocative and creative pastoral story-tellers who are trying to waken the EM out of a meditative trance? Ever notice how much easier it is to ask rather than answer questions?

[Matt]

I'm neither a pastor or a theologian, but I think it is somewhat unfair to castigate the entire SBC leadership as being reactionary and anti-EC. I'm willing to bet that a chunk of SBC bigwigs wouldn't know Brian McLaren if he rolled their yard. Anyone think Steve Gaines or Bobby Welch has read ANKOC? I doubt it.

I'm guessing that Mohler and Moore have read McLaren just fine. If there's a problem, it's that they're too forceful in their reaction, though I'm not saying they are. My point is that you really can't judge the whole SBC by their reaction.

I'm curious, though, about just how much dialogue they should offer a group of folks (the EC) that is so unbelievably difficult to define. I, for one, am quite hesitant about anyone who gives Derrida's ideas any serious consideration.

[Steve McCoy]

Matt, even mildly equating the EC with giving Derrida's beliefs 'serious consideration' is unfounded. I'm sure some do, I'm sure many don't.

John, I don't think the money angle works at all in this case, and you couldn't know that anyway.

And for this whole thread, and the whole flippin' blog-world. Let's stick to what we know people have said and written. Let's talk about that.

As soon as anyone on either side (or no side) bring up motivations and intentions and such they end up eating their words or trying to defend them without evidence. I know we all think we can get a bead on motivations from time to time, but we should steer clear and stick to the issues.

Rant over.

[Matt]

Steve, I was referring that big "You Might Be Emergent" post that's been going around. I forgot the blog. But I'm just asking - and I mean this sincerely - for those of us who aren't constantly up to snuff on our theology debates, what are the characteristics of the EC?

Is there a legitimate clearinghouse for this stuff?

[John Frye]

Greg,
I like the way you reacted to my "need money" comment, but you're silent on Moore and some in the SBC calling McLaren "a false teacher."

Steve, to call McLaren "a false teacher" is a statement of motivation. In the NT "false teachers" intentionally went among the believers to lead them astray. I CAN'T believe Moore and the SBC are getting away with that kind of rhetoric. Also, I take your correction to heart.

[Jason Tockey]

Does it bother anyone else that Moore charges McLaren with being a false teacher. That is a serious and hefty charge. It shouldn't be excused by simply referring to it as rhetoric. If he has charges to make then make them and attempt to bring his brother back to faith. If he overstated himself have the integrity to repent and strive to reflect Christ better.

[Greg McRitchie]

The charge of "False Teacher" is indeed serious. McLaren has espoused unbiblical views on Homosexuality, denied substitutionary atonement and raised many other serious issues. (Not the least of which includes embracing those who deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus as brothers.) I don't know for sure if Mr McLaren is a False Teacher, but If he is unwilling to answer questions about these and other issues that HE has raised, then it is perfectly legitimate to hold him at arms length, never mind giving him public endorsement by giving him a platform in your Church.

BTW I have not seen one emergent person call McLaren on his outrageous comments at Princeton that "Churches on the right are becoming mentally ill; and violently so"
I'm still waiting for that.

[Steve McCoy]

Greg, the point is that if the charge of false teacher is so serious that it shouldn't come with empty rhetoric (which immediately makes the charge seem empty). It's serious, so it should take serious engagement.

That's why I'm trying to encourage my brothers in the SBC to lose the daggers and engage. And I would recommend if you are going to make the charges as you did in your last comment, you might want to give a reason or evidence rather than accusations alone. You are dealing with a real guy who I believe really is trying to live his faith, however flawed his theology may or may not be.

[Greg McRitchie]

Good points Steve
I believe honest engagement is required on both sides. That's why I have to wonder when I hear EC leaders and proponents taking what seems to be great delight in purposefully NOT answering legitimate questions.

You can listen to McLarens talk for yourself @ http://cleave.blogs.com/pomomusings/2005/11/brians_lecture_.html
I put his comment in ""s from memory but I believe they are exact. He also asked his audience if it would bother them if the next John Calvin were Gay (loose paraphrase). The context leaves the listener with the distinct impression that it would not bother Brian at all and in fact it should be encouraged.
I don't have the quote handy about substitutionary atonement but I could find it.

Princeton along with all mainline Liberalism is now famous/infamous for producing pastors/theologians who's idea of the Resurrection is the same as that held by a recent head of the United Church in Canada who; (after he was stupid/honest enough to admit in a newspaper interview that he flat out did not believe that Jesus rose physically from the dead) said "We believe in the risen Jesus who lives in our hearts" McLaren never mentions this when he is courting mainline Liberals yet he seems to think we can just join hands with them.

I don't question Brian McLarens sincerity at all but it is possible to be sincerely wrong, and I think he is. Not because I'm afraid or because I have some paid position to defend (I am a lowly potter who makes a meager living with my hands) but because I believe that the bible is clear on these issues, and as a disciple of Jesus, I have a mandate to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints.

I think the EM has some very good insights and some very legitimate concerns which I share, but there also seems to be a spirit of rebellion present in many of it's leaders. Not only to wards the established Church but also to wards God as He has revealed Himself through His Word. I think this E movement is coming to a point of crisis where it will have to decide if it is going to go with the World or with God. James 4:4 Thats not to say you have to have pews and pulpits those things are extraneous, as are candles and couches. The Gospel is the bottom line prerequisite for unity and Brian McLaren is being ambiguous about key elements of it. He needs to stop asking, and start answering if he wants to be accepted by his mentally ill brethren.

[Jason Tockey]

Greg,

Why don't we deal with the specifics of this thread first. Russ Moore has accused McLaren of being a false teacher and hasn't substantiated it. Hold him accountable before you start looking for generic specs in the ec eye.

Also you say, "McLaren has espoused unbiblical views on Homosexuality, denied substitutionary atonement and raised many other serious issues. (Not the least of which includes embracing those who deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus as brothers.)" Last time I checked the issue of substitutionary atonement was debated and brothers and sisters have differing opinions. Secondly, how are you a false teacher for embracing someone? I would like to hear from you specifics about what he said on homosexuality not, " He also asked his audience if it would bother them if the next John Calvin were Gay (loose paraphrase). The context leaves the listener with the distinct impression that it would not bother Brian at all and in fact it should be encouraged."

Conversation involves questions, seeking answers, dialogue not throwing out daggers vague recollections. It also involves dealing with the question at hand not deflecting back onto the other side with, "but they don't do this" comments (believe honest engagement is required on both sides. That's why I have to wonder when I hear EC leaders and proponents taking what seems to be great delight in purposefully NOT answering legitimate questions. - your comment starting last post).

[Ochuk]

Yep, this thread is perpetuating the McLaren=Emerging Church stereotype.

[Greg McRitchie]

Jason;
I'm not SBC and I don't know Moore. I was dealing with the specific charge that Moore made. I think he should substantiate his position with facts and I think McLaren should cut the martyr act and unambiguously answer clear legitimate questions.

I think if you listen to the context of his comments at Princeton you can't really fall back on "he was just asking questions" That is really getting tired and smacks of one who takes the 5th, simply to avoid self incrimination. If he has nothing to hide then lets hear it!

Embracing those who deny the Resurrection and the Deity of Jesus (as liberal mainline Churches openly do) implies endorsement (See 2 John :9). That is why it is legitimate for the SBC to dis-invite Mclaren.

Ochuk
McLaren is a leading spokesperson for the EC. I see him constantly pointed to by the folks within the EC as a shinning example but then they want to disassociate themselves when he says things they don't like. It may not be fair but he is the one everyone is looking to from both sides.

[Lukas McKnight]

Greg, I don't think you're being very fair here. Should I just refer to the actions and sayings of Pat Robertson when I talk about conservative Christianity? No, that would not be fair, and I doubt you'd like that. You would agree with many of the things he said, but you aren't going to back him on everything. I think it's the same way with McLaren or, for that matter, anyone who represents a large group.

It would be nice to hear some more discussion on the original point of this thread instead of what this has become!

[Jason Tockey]

Lukas,

I would like to know what your take on what the original point is. Steve, in an earlier post, says that his point is how are we to dialogue with people we disagree with. The issues that raised this question arose from Russ's comments about the fadishness of the EC and the claims that McLaren was a false teacher. I think the posts are around this. Honest question, "Did I miss something?"

[Greg McRitchie]

Lukas. LOL I hear Pat Roberson brought up as representing conservative Churches constantly especially by Brian McLaren. I'm glad you acknowledge that to be an unfair misrepresentation. McLaren did not even have the courage to call "Churches on the right" False Teachers, opting instead for calling them violently mentally ill. I suppose he does not hold them responsible for their actions (False Teachings) because of their mental illness.

The original point of this thread was questioning the propiety of Moore calling Brian McLaren a False Teacher and dis-inviting him from being a platform speaker. The only way to answer that is to examine the specific teachings of Brian McLaren, unless you think it is always inappropriate to call someone a False Teacher. If that's the case I would like to see your criticisms of Jesus and Paul and Peter who did just that.

Do you think it would be inappropriate to forbid someone you think is a False Teacher from speaking from the pulpit (assuming you have one) in your Church this Sunday? (assuming you meet and that you do on Sunday)

I think the "Fad" comment is rather mild and not nearly as serious as the charge of "False Teacher". After all; one could "Experience God through the purpose driven forty day prayer of Jabez. and still be considered a brother in fellowship. That would not be the case if the charge of False Teacher were true.

I have to run some errands, I'll check back later to see your response.

[Jason Sampler]

Since when did it become acceptable to slide pot shots at people in the middle of a fairly decent post? Greg, you were doing so well until you succumbed to mocking Lukas's church ("assuming you have [a pulpit]" and "assuming you[r church meets] and that you do it on Sunday"). What in the world do these snide comments have to do with Moore, McLaren, or anything else. Your ad hominum attack falls on deaf ears, for most of us are not concerned, nor appreciate, comments aimed at other persons. Now, you added "LOL" at the beginning, so maybe you weren't being serious about the whole thing, but why even post it in the first place? Why even take the chance of being misunderstood?

Just my thoughts.

[Richard A. Bailey]

Steve, have these last few comments actually brought the post back around, illustrating that "unreasonable caricatures" do indeed "make whatever wisdom [one] has on [an] issue hard to hear?" What genius!! Who would have thought that our little McCoy could so plan an argument to make the point that such characterizations are "like saying you aren't willing to look any deeper." Now I understand why you encouraged a friend "to lose the rhetoric and stick to the issues." Brilliant!!

For some strange reason, I really crave a Guinness. Irish Rover, here I come.

[Steve McCoy]

Bailey, that is the most profound comment I have read in some time. I needed it after the above comments. :)

Greg said, "The original point of this thread was questioning the propiety of Moore calling Brian McLaren a False Teacher and dis-inviting him from being a platform speaker."

Greg, that was my point in a post like three months ago and NOT the point of this thread. You have kindly hijacked this thread to make it about your point, but bro, that ain't it. And you have now soundly demonstrated how to do exactly I said not to do in my point. You have been heavy on rhetoric and light on actual critique. I encourage you to reread and reload for a different conversation.

[Greg McRitchie]

Steve I think you are being overly sensitive and thin skinned but I am going to think about it some more.

[Steve McCoy]

Greg, I hope that was an attempt to be funny. If it was, it was truly funny. Hilarious, really.

If it wasn't, then you have AGAIN proven my point. Empty rhetoric. Telling you that you missed the point of the whole thread is a statement of mere fact and has nothing to do with being 'thin skinned' and 'overly sensitive.'

[Greg McRitchie]

Steve
I have purposefully taken a little time to respond in order to let what you said sink in a bit. My humor is often lost on people. I prefer to be direct and I value the faithful wounds of a friend over the kisses of an enemy. Thank you for your candidness. Let me do likewise.

First; Your last response to me did exactly what you said should not be done and bordered on mocking. I did not miss the point of "the whole thread" I just have a slightly different take on it that you do. I say slightly because as you point something is not necessarily unfair if it is true.

Before I go on; let me share some advise I always gave my daughter. When she was younger and would be slightly injured when playing her older brothers she would howl as though she had been shot. I would always tell her "you have to be tough if you want to play hockey" The humor was lost on her but the point was that her "wounds" were almost always the result of interactions that she was party to in the first place. If she wanted to engage her brothers by initiating rough play, then she should be prepared to receive a response, otherwise; don't play hockey! It's a rough sport.

The EC/EM is founded (at least on one level) on a rejection of what it sees as the "inauthentic" practices of the established Evangelical Churches. The search for "authenticity" is certainly not new or exclusive to the EM. One of the first books that had an impact on my Christian walk was Schaeffer's "TRUE SPIRITUALITY" Written the early Seventies. It may just be youthful naivety but every generation seems to think they are the ones who will finally "get it right". However, in framing the conversation that way they not only do a disservice to all the generations that preceded them but also insult the current one that is comprised of many individuals that have given over their entire lives to glorify God and not themselves. You mentioned Carson and how you did not see the same kind of objections coming from him but he takes great exception to just this point when recalling the sacrifices of his own father and saying the EM's unfair and inaccurate generalizations bordered on blasphemy. The EM's analysis of Evangelicalism is rife with false dichotomies, mis characterizations and overly simplistic solutions. McLaren can call churches on the right, "mentally ill; and violently so" and it's written off as stirring the pot but when the shoe is on the other foot the howling starts.

Moore's response was to Mcknight's very unfair comparison (reasonably construed as an attack on the genuineness of the faith, motives and practice of the SBC) between the treatment of Cash in his early years, and Brian McLaren today. His response was not primaraly emotional, (although there was an element of that) It mostly focused on the Fact that Brian McLarens stated views make him in his mind a false teacher. Specifically;

"he denies some things that conservative evangelicals (including Kentucky Baptists) consider to be essential for evangelism (such as the necessity of conscious faith in Christ for salvation and the reality of hell)"

That is a statement of fact that is verifiable, at least to the point where Brian is intellectually honest enough to come out and stop hiding behind his fictional characters.

Where he (Moore) did stray over the line perhaps, was to jump from Brian specifically to the whole movement generally, but as noted, that is a problem for both sides of this dispute.

You seem particularly offended by the fad remarks but as you acknowledged, there is certainly an element of fadishness in the EM. I, along with Moore and others who see great danger (as well as great promise) in this movement are much more interested in substance than form. My comments about pulpits and meetings were meant to be along those lines I think they were taken as an attack when they were not meant that way.

This has been too long I know, but let me end by saying that while saying "he started it" does not absolve one from the responsibility to respond to personal attacks in a God honoring manner, none the less, the substantive issues in this dispute demand that we put aside our defensiveness and examine the facts. With that in mind, when you say;
"Moore's unreasonable caricatures of the EC make whatever wisdom he has on the issue hard to hear."

The first question that needs answering is; Are they true? and are they unreasonable? I think that question is one worth debating. If the specific charges of false teaching and heresy are substantiated, then they are far more serious than changing forms of worship whether they be candles or pews or orange carpets. Changing the tone will help people hear one another, I agree with that, but it is the height of arrogance for the EM to think the hearing only needs to be a one way exchange and frankly I see a lot of that in this movement.

My opinion from watching this EM evolve so far is that it is comprised of two distinct groups. One wants to tear down the foundations of Christianity as we have always known it and attempt to rebuild it from the epistemological ground up, while the other is simply interested in a more biblically faithful application of the "faith once delivered". The recent pronouncements on interfaith kingdom building may be just the thing that wakes some people up to the difference between the two. Until then, I think it's safe to say You have to be tough if you want to play Hockey.

[Scott M]

Greg,

I've read your comments here and on Scot McKnight's blog. I've thought long and hard to see if there was any way I could articulate a reply that would make sense and not unintentionally offend.

I do need to clarify something. I am not part of an emerging anything. I have experience with a fairly wide spectrum of Christianity and non-Christian religions. I'm forty, so I am leading-edge "GenX" (since that's what everyone calls us) with, in some ways, some fairly extreme leading edge boomer parents. My journey has been ... complicated, but I have been working to find a place in a fairly conventional evangelical church for more than a decade now.

I knew nothing about the emerging church/movement/conversation/whatever until about a year ago when a friend quoted something that grabbed my attention and which turned out to be from one of the EC sites. Since then, I've read a lot with a great deal of interest.

I have nowhere found that their objective is either to criticize, alter, or "fix" the typical evangelical church, though their experiences do often lead to critical pieces, especially during what some have labeled a "detox" phase. However, while there are certainly flaws, and pretty serious flaws, in the evangelical church, it's pretty hard to find any expression of the church at any point in history that did not/does not have flaws. As Scot McKnight has so eloquently put it, we are cracked eikons. And until that day we are restored, our institutions will always be flawed. It is a miracle of the Spirit that we are able to be the church at all!

What I have read instead is a great desire to speak the gospel in the language and culture of people who are more like me than you. This may be difficult for you to see, but people who think and process the world around us in the manner that I do have a very difficult time finding and understanding the gospel in the 20th century American evangelical church. It's not an absolute roadblock. Witness me. That's the work of the Spirit and God, though, overcoming the barrier of language and culture.

I haven't read any of Brian McClaren's books, but I have read a number of his online articles and essays as well as a few interviews. And my impression is that he truly does speak my language. If his goal and purpose was to reform or speak to the evangelical church, then I would agree with you that it would only be reasonable for him to do so on your terms. He came from that environment and culture, so he clearly knows what those are. However, if his purpose is not to engage people like you, but rather people like me, then he should do so in our language, in terms that make sense to me.

And part of that is a focus on questions, especially questions that strike near the core. It's building a story that feels complete and holds together. (Thanks Scot for "The Jesus Creed" and I'm looking forward to "Embracing Grace" for Christmas.) It's about finding those truths in which we can trust. Terms like "absolute" and "inerrant" make little sense in that context, even if you can clearly define your usage (which most people can't).

Altough I also haven't read the book that holds the analogy (either Blue Like Jazz or Velvet Elvis), my friend has described to me one analogy comparing residents of brickworld with residents of trampoline world. I live in the more fluid, ever-changing trampoline world experience. I know I've done a poor job describing it here. But it's something that's difficult to put into words.

And I have no interest in playing hockey. If you want to fight, you'll have to shadowbox.

Also, I will point out that, just as a matter of courtesy, when a blog owner tells you that you missed the point he was trying to make in the article he wrote, instead of accusing him of mocking you apologize for the miscommunication/misunderstanding and try to clarify the intended point. It sounds like you believe you understand Steve's point better than Steve himself does and I find that difficult to accept.

[Greg McRitchie]

Thanks Scott
To be honest I am not sure what you are trying to say besides the criticism in the last paragraph. Your response of not wanting to play Hockey is exactly how my daughter would respond, but that was conveniently after she had dropped the puck and thrown the first check. I guess you just wanted to throw me a drive by elbow to the head and leave it at that.

Whatever...

[Steve McCoy]

Greg, if you want to make post length comments, get your own blog. If you need my help in starting one, let me know. :)

We can't have a different take on this thread. It's my thread, my post, and my point. Scott M didn't give you an elbow, though you may deserve one. He gave you helpful correction and you gave him a 'whatever.' I don't appreciate that at all.

I'm not going to get into your epic comment but to say that a more recent post of mine is getting a ton of comments and I'm taking shots from some in the EC/Emergent. Go figure.

[Account Deleted]

steve, i do not know how i missed out on this one and assume you might be looking for a comment with my name at the bottom (insert smiley face). i for one am gald someone is calling for cogent dialogue rather than caricatures. i am glad someone is suggesting dealing with what one has written and said. i would add, why not make an attempt to dialogue with the person. it is not often easy but worth an attempt. rather than write off someone who may be busy, at least satisfy yourself (not directed at any one person here) by making the attempt.

an interesting development i will try to post on over at my site that ought to come into play here - while some may easily read mclaren and find points of contention and disagreement, few have read lyotard, derrida and for that matter barth or others. before i am summarily dismissed as being in league with these i mention, let me say i have not read them either. however, i succumbed to the habit of letting someone else tell what they say and what they should be rejected for. for example, lyotard us written off as suggesting the end of metanarratives. yet, what lyotard may have said, as i am told, there is an end to the scientific metanarrative, in other words the metanarrative of modernity. i cannnot argue what lyotard said but from someone else who has read him i am now suspicious about those who claim to know what he says without reading him. i have heard interesting comments coming from derrida that don't necessarily stack up either and i have not read him. and finally, everyone dismissed barth for his neo-orthodoxy and yet as hard as he is to read, few have reaaly read the full text of church dogmatics.

what invariably happens is what has happened here - benefit is not given when the person calling another a false teacher has not adequately interacted with the one so charged. i find it interesting that so much certainty is thrown around on this thread when in reality not many have attempted to become "conversant with emergent" but rather have become conversant with carson or others' critique of emergent.

so steve, thanks for calling us out again to engage people as people and to put an end to incessant name calling and harsh charges which in the end only serve to dismiss rather than engage.

keep up the call ...

[Greg McRitchie]

Steve;
Holy power play Bat Man.

"It's my thread, my post, and my point."

Ever see finding Nemo? "MINE,MINE,MINE"

"Scott M didn't give you an elbow, though you may deserve one."

Have you asked yourself; "what would Jesus do?" ;)

"a more recent post of mine is getting a ton of comments and I'm taking shots from some in the EC/Emergent. Go figure."

That should not be a surprise to you Steve. You have questioned the profit and you are hurting sales. (that's a joke Son)

In all seriousness. I found your recent questions refreshing, and to be honest, it is the first time I have seen any sort of internal dissension in the EM. I commend you for your honesty.

..................................
Jason you asked me;

"Since when did it become acceptable to slide pot shots at people in the middle of a fairly decent post? Greg, you were doing so well until you succumbed to mocking Lukas's church ("assuming you have [a pulpit]" and "assuming you[r church meets] and that you do it on Sunday"). What in the world do these snide comments have to do with Moore, McLaren, or anything else."

The answer from Bolgblog is;

"Some of these commmunities do not have a meeting. This seems like the Jesus people movement of the sixties. Back to communes?
Well, yes, and no. As we mentioned earlier, they do not see church as a meeting but simply as the people of God. This de-centers the church service. The critical activity is participating in community together. Of secondary importance is a particular corporate gathering."
http://thebolgblog.typepad.com/thebolgblog/2005/12/hypothetical_in.html

So (according to Bolger) in speaking to an EC proponent, it would be presumptuous to assume that they meet on Sunday, have a pulpit, or that they meet at all.

[JG]

Oh, the irony of caricaturing people's positions about caricaturing people's positions.

I think it is sad how easily dismissive (and downright unkind) people have been toward Mohler and Moore, while at the same time charging them with being uncritical in their statements about the EC.

It might be helpful in this entire discussion to remember that even though some of you feel like that Mohler and Moore don't understand, you're not helping the situation with backhanded comments about their ignorance. (Which if you knew either one, you'd know is not the case. Am I right, Steve?)

Maybe some people here emotionally defend something of which they have not been critical enough (EC). Maybe not.

My point is this: don't whine and cry about having this "conversation" unless you are willing to let people point out the weak parts of the EC, even if you personally don't hold to those parts. Conversation is 2 sided, and complaining is 1 sided.

[Steve McCoy]

JG, it's been a while. (I've edited my original comment)

In an overall sense, of course Mohler and Moore are both brilliant. I've said that before. As to their position on the EC, I do think they show plenty of ignorance. That's why some respond as they do to them. I don't excuse that, and in this thread have tried to correct it. But they refuse to enter the conversation and shout at it from afar with caricatures. I think that shows ignorance of something.

[Greg McRitchie]

Careful there JG you just might get labeled a Rhubarb.

[JG]

Yes, their statements are against certain elements of the EC, and are not representative of the whole. I think they would say that too. I would guess they would see themselves pointing out theologically weak areas in the EC, just like many of you guys do in pointing out theologically weak areas in the SBC. It comes off as a caricature, but it doesn't make the critique less true for some elements.

I think they are reacting more to the theologically-liberal elements of the EC, which is represented (most easily) by McLaren. The reason most of their critiques are at him, is because he is the most prolific writer and has the ear of everyone in the EC, even if they don't agree with him on everything.

But I don't want to speak for them because I do not know exactly what their goal is.

Anyways....what's a rhubarb? (besides being a veggie)

Steve, I have more time to read all these blogs now that I am graduated. I'll try not to be a stranger around these parts.

[Steve McCoy]

I would never label JG a rhubarb since I like JG and I don't like rhubarb.

I'm all for the proper critique of McLaren et al, just as I'm for the proper critique of Moore, Mohler, and my mom. (Well maybe not my mom, but you get the picture.) But if Moore is speaking about some in the EC, why doesn't he say so? He has had every opportunity to, but seems quite intent to speaking in broadbrushed caricatures as publicly as he can. Maybe Moore doesn't like McLaren's concept of a 'generous orthodoxy,' but an ungenerous one isn't any better.

And, of course, I do hope I will see more comments from you JG. I would use your name, but I will let you reveal that as you like. You are quite welcome here.

[JG]

LOL

You can use my name. I am not being purposefully anonymous, just lazy.

[ER]

Greg,
Your thoughts on this whole thread and issue seem to be right on target.
Thanks.