I have found it at times fascinating, strange, helpful and hurtful when certain watchdog types of Christians write on blogs pretty mean things about other Christians and 98% of the time they are grossly inaccurate. I am aware that it is a pretty small slice of Christians who think like that and do those things, but as my theory goes - the small % are the most vocal ones. At first I was caught off guard by the tone and spirit of the "watchdogs" as I had never experienced that level of tone and words from Christians before. But then I realized, most of them are just trying their best in their own way to protect what they feel should be protected. But after reading enough of how many of them think, they really aren't watchdogs as in trained watch dogs like Doberman pinschers, but are more like little barking poodles. I like poodles actually. But the tiny ones sure can be mean and bark loudly and bare their fangs at anyone who doesn't live in their home. We owned a poodle growing up, so I have seen how you could have your best friend over and even relatives over, but the poodle didn't like anyone they were unfamiliar with. Poodle_2_2 Poodles would then bark and growl in the way little poodles do even at friends and family members. It seems that many of the "watchdogs" out there, are like the poodle where they growl and bark at anything that is unfamiliar to them - even if it is the best friends or other family members of the family they live with. The poodle has good intentions, but anyone different and unfamiliar that isn't in their particular world or way of thinking gets barked and growled at.Read the whole post here.
I do always want to listen and be open to seeing if there is any truth to critics. I need people to be holding me accountable to any teaching or writing I do. I think that comes best in the context of relationships and people you trust and respect and actually know what you are doing and aren't speculating from the outside. So I have people who do say things or ask questions that I trust and listen to them. I don't personally agree with everything under the "emerging" or "emergent" label - as there is diversity and I try to be clear about my personal beliefs which may differ from others. So we need "watchdogs" (so to speak) but ones who are trained and understand what they really should be watching out for.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Watchdogs
I resonate with this quote from Dan Kimball:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I read that blog this morning, and did find some good points and some that I did resonate with as well. I think that one of the problems we have today is we are in such a "for us or against us" mentality that we have no room for discussion, and maybe are afraid or unwilling to be thoughtful for 2 secounds about other views, even if they are not that much "other" for that matter
As a Christian who is more than a bit wary of the "emerging church" movement, I find this to be an encouraging post, for the most part, from one of the "leaders" in said movement. I agree with most of the points that Dan Kimball makes here. Certain critics of the emerging church movement speak in sweeping generalities about it, and at times, they do so with a distinct lack of Christian love.
Having said that, the more Biblically sound emerging church leaders do not help their cause with the "watchdogs" when they willingly appear in public (and in print) alongside other emerging leaders who make very Biblically troubling statements. One example of these latter leaders is Brian McClaren, who has the "hero" in his quasi-fictional book, The Sory We Find Ourselves In, insult the Biblical doctrine of the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ by saying that it sounds like "divine child abuse." McClaren has also publicly called for the evangelical church at large in America to take a five-year break from making public statememts about the sinfulness of homosexual acts, because apparently, according to McClaren, Scripture isn't sufficiently clear on the issue. Why is no emerging leader, other than perhaps Mark Driscoll, willing to call out Brian McClaren, Rob Bell, and others in this movement who waver on the clarity of Scripture, regarding very basic issues? Rob Bell's book, Velvet Elvis, is full of postmodern assertions that the doctrines of the Bible cannot be authoritatively understood and preached. Rather, according to Bell, they can only be "interpreted"-- and he at least seems to suggest that one person's "interpretation" is as good as another's. This is treading on dangerous (i.e. heretical) ground.
I don't wish to be unduly harsh, in the vein of those whom Kimball describes in his blog entry. Always, at all times, Christians should speak-- and yes, defend-- the truth IN LOVE. To not speak in a spirit of love, when defending Biblical truth, is to sin. However, the question remains-- when are the Biblically sound emerging church leaders going to stand up and call out Brian McClaren, Rob Bell, and others in the movement who wander perilously far from orthodox, Biblical Christianity in their writings and public statements? To remain silent, regarding these men and their dangerous public words about Biblical teachings, when one shares a platform and a "movement" with them (even a very loosely defined movement), is irresponsible and shows a lack of love itself for Biblical truth.
Chris--if a Frenchman (for example) were to continually criticize "president Busch"... wouldn't that be a little silly? Similarly, the fact that you systematically spell Brian McLaren's name incorrectly does little to help your cause.
As for his views on atonement, it's fair to assume he's getting at least some of his cues from NT Wright, who argues that many (McLaren, Chalke, and others) are reacting to a distortion of the biblical doctrine of atonement (more here).
As for the homosexuality question, I offer Brian's own words: "I did not argue or call for a moratorium on discussion or making decisions (as some responders asserted). I simply suggested that a moratorium on making pronouncements might be a good idea. [...] Of course, I did not and do not seriously expect such a moratorium to happen. Who would have the authority to call for it, and what could anyone do to enforce it? The purpose of the hypothetical proposal was to point up the desirability of not engaging in hurtful and divisive rhetoric" (see here).
It's important when discussing divisive topics to be as careful as possible. Hopefully the above comments help in that task.
Rich blessings,
-Daniel-
Daniel, obviously, you are right about my incorrect spelling of McLaren's name. When looking up the quote from his book, I should have more closely checked the spelling of his name! :-) However, the spelling mistake does not detract one bit from the validity of my concerns about his unBiblical statements. If the penal substutionary atonement of Christ for sinners is not clear from Scripture, NOTHING is clear from Scripture. People who deny penal substitution are either misreading (misunderstanding) the texts, or substituting their own preferred ideas for the Biblical truth that they cannot stomach. Isaiah 53 is an undeniable description of Jesus's substitutionary suffering and death on behalf of sinners. To claim so is not a "distortion" of Biblical teaching. The real distortion is when people claim that Jesus merely suffered and died as an "example" for us, or in some sort of "solidarity" with the human race.
On the issue of McLaren's wished-for moratorium on public statements on the sinfulness of homosexual acts, I know that he wasn't calling for an end to "discussions" or "suggestion." That in itself is part of the problem though. When Scripture is clear that an act is an abomination (as it is with homosexual acts), the need is not so much for "discussions" and "suggestions" as it is for clear, unwavering, firm, and yes, loving public statements on the issue from the church at large. To mislead homosexuals, or people who are simply confused about their sexuality, into thinking that Scripture is unclear on the sinfulness of practiced homosexuality is the very definition of unloving. Such misleading is unloving because it lies to people about God and about what He loves and hates.
Post a Comment