Click here to listen to it, or right-click and select “Save As” to save a copy on your PC. You have my permission to burn the sermon to CD or put it on your IPOD, put it on Facebook, or distribute it to whomever you’d like.

Rob Bell’s response was:

I would say that history is headed somewhere. The thousands of little ways in which you are tempted to believe that hope might actually be a legitimate response to the insanity of the world actually can be trusted. And the Christian story is that a tomb is empty, and a movement has actually begun that has been present in a sense all along in creation. And all those times when your cynicism was at odds with an impulse within you that said that this little thing might be about something bigger—those tiny little slivers may in fact be connected to something really, really big.

In the video, I point out that it is Scripture that is profitable for instruction and correction (2 Timothy 3:16), and that given Twitter’s 140 character limitation on posts, a good way to “tweet” the Gospel would be to use:

Romans 5:8: God demonstrated his own love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

But instead, Rob gave us the quote above. It doesn’t talk about sin, man’s depravity, Jesus, God, etc. Instead, the closest that he gives us is this:

“And the Christian story is that a tomb is empty…”

That’s it? That’s the Gospel? That’s not the Gospel at all, and that was what my post was about.

Out of all the videos I’ve created, this one has caused the biggest stir. I get more hits on that video than any other, and the comments (especially the private ones to my Youtube inbox) are more vicious than any other video I’ve made. Here’s one example:

You seem to forget that if you just throw a bible verse at someone they may not understand what it means or why they should believe, heck, they may even not read it because it’s scripture. If we want to relate to people and actually show them the gospel of love then maybe we actually need to go meet them where they’re at with language that they can relate to. Also, there is no scripture that says that the bible is the ‘ultimate authority’. Further than that, 2 Timothy 3:16 says that it is ‘God-breathed’ or ‘inspired’ not ultimate. And on top of that the original Greek could easily be read as ‘every scripture that is inspired by God is useful…’. Now that changes the meaning hugely. Rob Bell is a man who is after God’s heart and actually has the courage and faith to promote love. He has helped thousands of people in their walks with Christ. And he is part of a long tradition. The long tradition of a reforming church. If you knew about church history, you would know that.

I want to address some of these objections if I can.

First, the writer says: “You seem to forget that if you just throw a bible verse at someone they may not understand what it means or why they should believe, heck, they may even not read it because it’s scripture.”

So, let me get this straight. Rob Bell professes to be a believer, and a pastor/teacher at that. Why would he NOT use Scripture? If someone was going to Rob Bell’s site to read what he tweeted, you’re saying that it’s best NOT to use Scripture because someone may not read or understand it? Should I use that same logic while preaching? Should all preachers jettison the Bible because someone may not understand it?

The Bible itself tells us: “1 Corinthians 1:18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”

Next, the writer says: “If we want to relate to people and actually show them the gospel of love then maybe we actually need to go meet them where they’re at with language that they can relate to. Also, there is no scripture that says that the bible is the ‘ultimate authority’.”

As for meeting people where they’re at with language that they can relate to, sure! I am all about that. But if that is what Rob is attempting to do in his Christianity Today article, he missed the mark. He may have come up with a more palatable message, but by the time he was done, it wasn’t the Gospel.

As for no Scripture that says that the bible is the ‘ultimate authority’, how about rereading Psalm 119? It’s all about the power and sufficiency of God’s Holy Word. I would also ask that you go back and restudy the original greek again. Are you claiming that there are some Scriptures in the Bible that are NOT inspired by God? The Holy Word of God is inspired because it is God-breathed. ALL Scripture is God’s Word, and is inspired.

At the end of the letter, my knowledge of church history is called into question, and the statement is made that Rob Bell is part of a long tradition of reformers. Riiiiiight. Rob Bell’s deconstruction of the Gospel is not reformation. It’s deformation.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg7WtaPGfCs

Recently I was given a copy of Jesus Calling, a devotional by Sarah Young. When I first received it, I began thumbing through it, and something in it struck me as quite odd from the very beginning:

It’s written from Jesus’ point of view, the first person singular.

To give you an example of this, here’s part of the entry for January 1:

“Come to Me with a teachable sirit, eager to be changed. A close walk with Me is a life of continual newness. Don not cling to old ways as you step into a new year. Instead, seek My Favce with an open mind, knowing that your journey with Me involves being transformed by the renewing of your mind.”

That phrase “Come to Me” is supposed to be Jesus talking to me. I have a big problem with this. While Sarah Young says in the intro that she knows that her writing is not on the same level as inspired Scripture, what does she mean to do by writing a book called “Jesus Calling” in first person singular, and saying in the intro that it was “God speaking to her”?

Mrs. Young states on pages x-xi of the introduction:

“During that same year (1992), I began reading God Calling, a devotional book written by two anonymous ‘listeners.’ These women practiced waiting quietly in God’s Presence, pencils and paper in hand, recording the messages they received from Him. The messages are written in first person, with ‘I’ designating God….. The following year, I began to wonder if I, too, could receive messages during my times of communing with God. I had been writing in prayer journals for years, but that was one-way communication: I did all the talking. I knew that God communicated with me through the Bible, but I yearned for more. Increasingly, I wanted to hear what God had to say to me personally on a given day. I decided to listen to God with pen in hand, writing down whatever I believed He was saying. I felt awkward the first time I tried this, but I received a message. It was short, biblical, and appropriate. It addressed topics that were current in my life: trust, fear, and closeness to God. I responded by writing in my prayer journal. My journaling had changed from monologue to dialogue. Soon, messages began to flow more freely, and I bought a special notebook to record these words. This new way of communicating with God became the high point of my day. I knew these writings were not inspired as Scripture is, but they were helping me grow closer to God.”

First, Mrs. Young says she knew that God communicated with her through the Bible, yet she “yearned for more.” Isn’t God’s inspired Holy Scripture enough? God has revealed Himself to Us through His Son Jesus Christ who came in the flesh, through the Holy Spirit who indwells believers, through His inspired, written word, yet it’s not enough? If God came in the flesh and spoke, and if we believe that Jesus is God’s FINAL revealing Word, then WHY do we need 365 days of additional instruction written from God’s point of view? We don’t!

The Bible says:

“John 20:31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.”

We can have abundant life in His name, yet it’s not enough?

Second, Mrs. Young stats that she wanted to “hear what God had to say to me personally on a given day.”

The Bible says in 2 Peter 1:20-21: “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, (21) for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

Now I realize that God reveals His word to us. It’s called illumination. James tells us to ask for wisdom from God so that we can understand. Yet how is it that Sarah Young can now write 365 days of devotional material from Jesus’ perspective, state that it’s a “new way of communicating with God”, and have people treat it as just some regular devotional material?

It’s either God’s Word, or it’s not. And if it IS God’s Word, and she is writing it from Jesus’ perspective, then it’s being presented in an authoritative way. That’s probably what bothers me the most about this. I’ve read lots of other devotional material, but never have I read anything that someone says is a message from God, and it be in the FIRST PERSON, as if Jesus is directly speaking. IF Jesus is truly speaking in her writing (and I do not believe He is), then wouldn’t I take His word as revealed to Sarah as seriously as I would Scripture? Do you see the problem? How is a young Christian supposed to read such things in her book and NOT believe that it’s Scripture?

Friends, the words in Sarah’s book are not Jesus’ words, but the way it’s written, it is portrayed as if Jesus is speaking. I tremble at the thought of writing 365 days of anything and claiming in comes directly from Jesus, from His point of view. That’s exactly what she claims when she says: “I decided to listen to God with pen in hand, writing down whatever I believed He was saying. I felt awkward the first time I tried this, but I received a message.”

And what about the accuracy of these messages written as if from Jesus himself to us? Take for example, the June 22nd entry, which begins with:

“Thank Me for the very things that are troubling you. You are on the brink of rebellion, precariously close to shanking your fist in My Face.” How does Sarah Young know this? Another question: How is it that ALL Christians who read this particular entry on June 22nd are on the “brink of rebellion”?

The May 9th entry also says “Because you are human, you will continue to make mistakes. Thinking that you should live error-free is symptomatic of pride.” Where do we find Jesus saying THAT in Scripture?

Or again on February 19th: “You are feeling weighed down by a plethora of problems both big and small.” But what if I’m not? What if I am joyous? Does that mean that I am in the wrong on February 19th?

Are you beginning to see the problems with Sarah Young’s devotional? By writing it from Jesus’ point of view, the presumtion is overwhelming. And it gets worse. Sarah is writing another version of this book… for children!

Yet Scripture teaches us: 2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; (17) so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

I do not need a word from Jesus from a secondary source when Scripture itself is sufficient. Mrs. Young herself even states that God speaks to us through His Word. GOD’s word is inspired, not Sarah’s. And it is God’s word that is sufficient to train me in righteousness, and according to God’s word, His training that comes through His Word will make me adequate, equipped for every good work.

I am really amazed at the comment that Michael (AKA “Phoenix Preacher”) posted in his comments section of his blog. He says:

Michael says:
May 10, 2010 at 9:33 am
What Heitzig doesn’t realize is that these people are cowards…they hide behind their blogs and their rhetoric because they don’t have the theological or intellectual capacity to defend their thinking.

There’s only one way to handle a bully…hit them square in the mouth

This comment can be found here. It’s the 12th comment.

Tell me anywhere in Scripture where we are told that “the only way to handle a bully” is to “hit them square in the mouth”. Doesn’t it seem ironic that in a post on his blog called “Selling Hate” that Phoenix Preacher is recommending violence against Ken Silva of apprising.org? Michael accuses Ken Silva and LTR of selling hate, and he’s the one recommending a beating. Uhm, how is that in any way biblical?

Ken has covered this topic in a post entitled: “EMERGENT CHURCH LEADERS AND ODMS—ONLINE DISCERNMENT MINISTRIES“.

Ken’s ministry at Apprising.org is a direct outreach of his local church. They support him and pray for him to be a Godly man and stand in the gap on the Internet. I read Ken’s article, and I certainly didn’t see any libel. I simply saw Ken stating an opinion about how Leonard Sweet’s theology doesn’t line up biblically. Ken stated:

“Despite those of us in this field of ministry being branded with the derogatory slur “ODMs,” which essentially makes us the new lepers, LTR is absolutely correct. And this is becoming a good example of the very real reason Jesus has sent forth online apologetics and discernment ministries.”

Michael (AKA Phoenix Preacher) apparently disagrees, when he states:

“Jesus didn’t send out these ministries. It’s past time to call these what they are… parachurch entities based on selling hate and fear.”

Here are some questions directly to Michael: How do you KNOW that these ministries (Lighthouse Trails and Apprising.org) are not called to do what they do? Did God reveal that to you? Michael, your statement is an absolute. You are stating that Jesus DIDN’T do something. How do you know that? Is Ken wrong? Is his local church wrong? Is Lighthouse Trails wrong? Can you prove any of this? You state that it’s all about the money, and that it’s about selling hate and fear. How do you know that? And finally, even if you dislike Ken Silva this much, what did Jesus tell you to do to enemies?

Jesus says:

Matthew 5:43-48 “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ (44) “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, (45) so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. (46) “For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? (47) “If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? (48) “Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

So, isn’t it loving to pray for those who are your enemies? Isn’t that what Ken is doing in this post where he asks his readers to pray for Samir Selmanovic? Or when he asks his readers to pray for Marcus Borg?

Instead, Michael thinks that hitting someone square in the mouth is the best action. Care to back that up with Scripture?

As a Southern Baptist, I am concerned about my denomination’s willingness to turn aside from God’s inerrant Word when we’re faced with difficult issues. The SBC may have fought the good fight when it comes to the doctrine of Scriptural inerrancy but the doctrine of Scriptural sufficiency is almost totally neglected. SBC pastors will preach from the pulpit that God’s Word is perfect, and yet turn away from God’s Word and turn towards psychology when it comes to answering life’s difficult questions, or when counseling church members in times of crisis.

Why? If we believe that God’s Word is perfect, then from that belief should also flow the doctrine that God’s perfect Word is also SUFFICIENT to do what God wills it to do. (Isaiah 55:11 So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.)

One text in the New Testament that seems to speak volumes about how we are to live sanctified lives by God’s Word is found in Matthew 7: 13-14 where Jesus says, “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.”

Somewhere along the way, we Christians have stood on the ground that Jesus Christ Himself is the narrow gate. Absolutely! This should be preached everywhere. People need to hear that salvation is in no other name than the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. (Act 4:12 “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”)

If we stand on God’s Word, believing that Jesus is the only way to salvation then what do we do AFTER salvation? Look at what Jesus says in Matthew 7:13-14 again: There is a narrow gate, and there is a narrow way. He says the gate is small and the way is narrow.

How narrow is the way? It’s quite narrow. It’s certainly not the broad path, the path of the world. If that’s the case, then why do we turn away from God when it comes to answering the tough questions of life? I believe it’s because preachers are no longer depending on God’s Word when it comes to life. Sure, we believe Jesus and God’s Word is necessary for salvation, but after that, we jettison Scripture and run to Dr. Phil, Oprah, and Judge Judy. Where did this wickedness come from?

Pastors! It came from pastors who preach half-truths, and a weak watered-down Gospel. Yes, Jesus saves sinners, but he also calls us to live holy, righteous lives. How are we to do that? By living according to God’s Word! And how are we to live according to God’s Word unless we truly believe that His Word is sufficient?

Psalm 119 contains wonderful promises for those who keep God’s Word. Especially beautiful are these verses:

Psalms 119:4-20 You have ordained Your precepts, That we should keep them diligently. Oh that my ways may be established To keep Your statutes! Then I shall not be ashamed When I look upon all Your commandments. I shall give thanks to You with uprightness of heart, When I learn Your righteous judgments. I shall keep Your statutes; Do not forsake me utterly! How can a young man keep his way pure? By keeping it according to Your word. With all my heart I have sought You; Do not let me wander from Your commandments. Your word I have treasured in my heart, That I may not sin against You. Blessed are You, O LORD; Teach me Your statutes. With my lips I have told of All the ordinances of Your mouth. I have rejoiced in the way of Your testimonies, As much as in all riches. I will meditate on Your precepts And regard Your ways. I shall delight in Your statutes; I shall not forget Your word. Deal bountifully with Your servant, That I may live and keep Your word. Open my eyes, that I may behold Wonderful things from Your law. I am a stranger in the earth; Do not hide Your commandments from me. My soul is crushed with longing After Your ordinances at all times.

It’s time as Christians that we returned to God’s Word not only for salvation, but for life! God’s Word IS life, and if we are to live holy lives that please God, then we must return to His Word. As Jesus said: “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.”

Bottom line: We must be people of God’s Word. The way is narrow, and God has given us His Word to keep us on His path.

Friends, there’s a big problem with this message. Rick was speaking to an audience that was primarily non-Christians. Jesus Christ was never mentioned. Instead a humanistic message that “God loves us for being us” was given. This message is not the Gospel, obviously, but the worst part, is that as a Christian pastor, Rick Warren basically just opened the floodgates for any behavior at all. Believers and non-believers alike can now simply do whatever they want, and think (based upon Rick) that God will smile upon them, and receive pleasure from people being whoever they desire to be.

Being a pastor myself, my first thoughts were, “What do Scriptures say about this?” The first passage that came to mind was this:

1Peter 1:14-19: As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, (15) but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; (16) because it is written, “YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY.” (17) If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth; (18) knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, (19) but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.

Now let’s take Rick’s message and apply it to Jennifer Knapp, the “Christian” who is now publicly stating that she’s a lesbian.

She appeared on Larry King Live just the other day, and made this statement:

Larry King: You say you’re the happiest you’ve ever been right now?
Jennifer Knapp: I’m pretty darn happy.
Larry King: So you’re glad all of this happened?
Jennifer Knapp: I am not a regretfull person.
Larry King: No, but you feel better?
Jennifer Knapp: I’m… I… I feel blessed to be able to fully be who I am. I love being able to be a musician and part of that process for me as a musician is being open and honest and to not feel like I have to lie or hide anything. I don’t necessarily want to talk about it all the time, but I don’t have to hide it either.

So based on what Rick Warren states, that God takes pleasure in “you being you”, Jennifer is currently being smiled upon by God, and He is taking pleasure in the fact that she is a lesbian.

Huh? How does that work?

Peter, speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote “..be holy yourselvces also in all your behavior, because it is written, ‘YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY’”

So which is it? Is Rick right, or is God right? Did God actually mean what he said in Scripture? If so, how does it apply to me? When will the evangelical world wake up and see that Rick Warren’s humanistic man-centered Gospel is at direct odds with what Scripture teaches?

I pray that Jennifer comes to her senses, and that she is “snatched from the fire.” Her behavior and blatant lesbian lifestyle have made herx profession of faith as a Christian into nothing. What a sad commentary this is on the holiness of the church and the lack of biblical discernment on the part of Jennifer.

Be sure to check out Ken Silva’s Apprising.org article here where the videos of Jennifer on Larry King Live are posted.

This article at www.ChristianPost.com shows just how slippery the social gospel can be. The social Gospel downplays the spiritual aspects of Chritianity, and is willing to partner with whomever will help them meet their humanistic goals. True Christianity is always God-centered in essence. But with his Global P.E.A.C.E. plan it’s becoming obvious that Rick Warren is replacing the true Gospel with one that is socially driven. Kay Warren (Rick Warren’s wife) made the following comments:

“If we are doing little to nothing, how dare we, how dare we claim to be followers of Jesus Christ,” she said Friday. “Followers of Jesus Christ care about widows and orphans and they understand that it is a litmus test.

“It is not an option.”

Just to make sure that I understood Kay properly, I looked up the definition of “litmus test” to make sure her definition fits mine. Here are two definitions for litmus test that seem to fit:

1) a critical indication of future success or failure or
2) A test that uses a single indicator to prompt a decision

Yes, we should care about orphans and widows. Absolutely we should. BUT, caring for orphans and widows is not the litmus test for whether one is a Christian or not.

ChristianPost.com goes on to quote Kay to say:

“It has nothing to do with personality, it has nothing to do with spiritual gifts, it has nothing to do with economic status, it has nothing to do with your season in life,” she stressed. “It has to do with accepting the responsibility that God will one day hold us accountable.”

And it’s not just a matter of personal responsibility either, she indicated.

There is a theological reason all Christians are to do something to help vulnerable children.

Warren highlighted: “What our Heavenly Father does for us spiritually, He expects us to do physically.”

What God did was not only save sinners but also bring them into His family.

“You and I were all spiritual orphans,” she said. “We’re not just cleared of the guilt of our sin. We belong in God’s family. He has taken us and made us part of Himself.

As Christians, we are told in Scripture:
“Col 1:13-14 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, (14) in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”

We’re also told by Christ that whatever we do to the least of these (on earth) we do unto him. Yet we are not told that we are saved by our good works. We do good works because we are saved. (Ephesians 2:8-9 for starters).

But when social gospel preachers and leaders get people to simply focus on doing good for the sake of doing good, then the Gospel has been compromised. As Christians, we should be so enamored with the Lord, following Him so closely, that we do good works out of love for him, not so we can show others our good deeds outwardly.

Kay goes on to say that she and Rick haven’t adopted a child yet either. Go figure. You see, Christian leaders need to be desperately pointing out to anyone who will listen that our main problem isn’t AIDS, poverty, homelessness, etc. Our biggest problem is sin. To make matters worse, many evangelicals are so enamored with solving social problems (don’t get me wrong, we do need to assist the poor and needy), that they’ve forgotten their first love. What Warren needs to do is proclaim Christ and Him crucified to a lost and dying world.

THEN, after our hearts are in the right place, and we are God-centered and focused on worshipping Him first and foremost, we can care for the social ills.

I am reminded of Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well. Sure she was an outcast (multiple husbands and a Samaritan ), yet Jesus didn’t address her from a social standpoint, but instead went to the HEART of the issue. She was living a sinful life, with a man not her husband, and had no clear understanding of who Messiah was, or even what Jesus was offering her. Yet Jesus didn’t compromise. He offered her life, abundant life.

Friends, we must do the same. Yes, help the poor, the needy, the orphans, the widows. BUT, never forget that our first and primary goal is to love the LORD, and to give Him the glory He so richly deserves.

I will readily admit that some of the statistics Brian quotes are sobering. But the conclusions he draws from these statistics display where the real error occurs. For instance, McLaren draws from Jim Peterson’s “Evangelism as a Lifstyle” – Navpress 1985, in which Brian says that the church was losing touch with “normal people” and “It’s preachers had forgotten how to speak their language.” While their may be problems in evangelical Christianity, certainly the preachers are not called to speak the language of “normal people” but instead they’re called to speak the language of God, spreading the good news of the Gospel to a dying world, where the “normal people” are lost in sin without Christ.

As a pastor, I know my calling is to preach God’s word. It’s to proclaim His truth in love. Yet to Brian, the answers that he’s coming up with stray from that calling. For instance, McLaren states on p. 6 of ANKoC that when people came up to him with questions after listening to him preach for six months, that:

“I would give them my best answers, but often after they left, I felt hollow. If they “bought” my answers I was strangely disappointed. If they pushed back and told me my answers still made no sense to them, I thought, “Good for you, because some of them don’t really make that much snse to me either.” (ANKoC p. 6)

I am immediately reminded of Paul taking young Timothy under his wing. In 2 Timothy 2:1-2, Paul writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:

“You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. (2) The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”

First, Timothy was to be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. He was not to waver. He was remain true to his teaching, which had come from Paul and was certainly confirmed within Timothy by the Holy Spirit. Second, Timothy was told to “entrust” the teachings he’d received from Paul to faithful men. In other words, Timothy was to take others and teach them as he had been taught by Paul, and since this was to be through the strength that comes from the grace that is in Christ Jesus, it would have to be the case that the Holy Spirit would confirm within Timothy that what Paul taught him lined up with Scripture.

This is not the case with Brian McLaren. Do you hear from the quote above on p. 6 that Brian himself doesn’t really put a lot of faith in the historic, orthodox teachings of the church? No wonder he went to other places to search for truth! Not only was he floundering over the truth, but McLaren later goes on to say on the same page that after a while their questions became his questions. His new-found faith was based on doubt!

Now don’t get me wrong, we SHOULD examine ourselves to see if we are indeed in the faith:

2Co 13:5 Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you–unless indeed you fail the test?

And again:

Acts 17:10-11 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. (11) Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

And therein lies the problem. Brian makes the case over the course of his book that we’ve gotten it all wrong. He makes a big strawman argument (which I will point out soon in another chapter review), and mischaracterizes true Christianity. Why? Because He doesn’t believe it to be true. He modifies the truth to fit his liking.

When Brian talks about his “disillusionment” with the Christian community during the 80′s and 90′s, he makes this argument:

“They wanted to protect unborn human life inside the womb, but didn’t seem to care about born human life in slums or prisons or nations they considered enemies. They loved to paint gay people as a threat to marriage, seeming to miss the irony that heterosexual people were damaging marriage at a furious pace without any help from gay couples.”

OK, this just doesn’t make sense. Is Brian trying to make the case that because church pastors didn’t stand up against rampant divorce and infidelity (even among Christians) that it’s now OK to love the homosexual lifestyle? (He answers that in chapter 17 “Can We Find A Way to Address Human Sexuality Without Fighting About it?” And unfortunately, when we get to that chapter, the answer he presents is anything but Biblical.) Just because pastors have done a lousy job of preaching the truth about sexual purity, personal holiness, etc. doesn’t give Brian the right to rampantly gut what the Bible says about ANY issue, not just homosexuality.

He continuously makes a case that there is a “brutal tension between something real and something wrong” in the faith. (ANKoC p. 7) The “something real” is apparently his view, and the something wrong is the “Greco-Roman” worldview strawman argument that Brian believes the rest of us conservative believers hold. After time though, he tips his hand and lets us see his cards:

“My spirituality was intact – because I was learning that there is a kind of faith that runs deeper than mere beliefs – but my belief system was in shambles. Little by little, though, a new coherence begant to emerge. That coherence was more a new way of believing, less a rebuilt system of beliefs, and I felt compelled to try to share what I was learning and experiencing. So I began to write, and from that time of theolofical collapse and spiritual recovery, my first book took shape, The Church on the other Side.”

This is the key to understanding McLaren.

McLaren readily admits that his belief system was in shambles. What he believed was falling apart, and as a result he was hobbling together a new belief system that would be based on doubting many of the core beliefs that makes Christianity what it is. During this time he “felt compelled” to try to share what he was learning and experiencing. So here’s the crux of it: Brian McLaren was having a faith crisis, and he was writing about it, and passing off his new-found doubt as the new faith of Christianity.

Let’s get something straight. I have no doubt that there are problems in evangelical circles. That’s true. But men of God don’t shipwreck the faith of others by casting doubt everywhere they go. Real men of God speak the truth in love.

So now that he has painted his side as one that is slowly coming to believe what is “right”, let’s take a look at what he poses as the “other side”. (THat would be us conservative, orthodox Christians who believe the bible is inerrant):

“The other side” referred to a position after the beginning of what I called the “postmodern transition.” On the past (“before”- side of the transition, in the modern era, nearly all our Protestant denominations had been formed. They were insitutuional children of the era of Sir Isaac Newton, the conquistadors, colonialism, the Enlightenment, nationalism, and capitalism. each denomination made sense of Christianity within the lines and boxes of modernity. You might say they rewrote and rearranged the anciend “data” of Christianity…..”

As for Brian’s definition of Christianity, he slams us as being part of a modernistic mindset, that is antiquated and behind the times. My question would be why does inception during the Modern era make something bad? Instead, Christianity is a product of Christ. Those who are truly following Christ don’t sit down and think, “You know, I need to make sure that what I believe was steeped in modernism.” Yet Brian’s argument later is that Christianity is fractured because of this very reason, that we are of a “colonial” mindset. Keep in mind that he is writing this of people that he is calling his “fellow Christians”, who are indwelt with the Holy Spirit. Many modern inventions that help man are from modernity. Should we throw them out too?

Instead Brian paints his “side of the equation” as follows:

“…the old modern paradigm…. was giving way to a new postmodern paradigm of pluralism, relativism, globalism and uncertainty – or at least a different kind of certainty, at its best more akin ro humble confidence. Modern Protestantism in both its liberal and conservative forms was being lost in transition and lost in translation.”

McLaren even goes so far as to say that those of us who are Protestants “seemed equally clueless” to what was going on outside of our churches. Brian’s broad-brush painting of Protestantism while wearing myopic glasses has painted a picture of us that’s simply untrue. Where in Scripture are we told that being pragmatic and relevant are the answers to a lost and dying world that so desperately needs a Savior? Instead we read the following in Hebrews:

Hebrews 11:32-40 And what more shall I say? For time will fail me if I tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets, (33) who by faith conquered kingdoms, performed acts of righteousness, obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions, (34) quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness were made strong, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. (35) Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection; (36) and others experienced mockings and scourgings, yes, also chains and imprisonment. (37) They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated (38) (men of whom the world was not worthy), wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground. (39) And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, (40) because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.

Those who were of faith were men of whom the world was not worthy, wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground. Does that sound like pragmatism? Does that sound like a description of being relevant? No, it does not.

Even in this first chapter Brian reveals where it is that he went astray. He was listening to polluted wells, sources who were also writing and agreeing with him, yet they themselves were not holding to traditional, orthodox Christianity, people like: Brian Walsh, Stan Grenz, and Leonard Sweet. McLaren writes:

“In spite of our diverse backgrounds, we all agreed: something isn’t working in the way we’re doing Christianity anymore. And although we didn’t know exactly what to do about it, we knew that we needed to keep talking and searching together- through the Internet, conferences and retreats, books and networks. So our quest for a new kind of Christianity had begun.”

Notice what’s missing from McLaren’s search: the Scriptures! Having heaped up for himself teachers, authors, writers, and conference speakers who were saying what he wanted to hear, it’s apparent from his new book that he’s drifted even further off course.

How could he not drift away from historic Christianity when he gives credence to people like Phyllis Tickle? This is the same woman who said at Rob Bell’s church that when we’re taking communion we’re “feeding the god within us”. She’s also said that it’s only a matter of time before Sola Scripture is gone. Beyond this she has continued to deny many core Christian beliefs and is a promoter of homosexual marriage.

With McLaren drawing from such polluted sources, no wonder he’s gone astray.

Stay tuned, and next the next installment will show even more problems with the “un-faith” of Brian McLaren.

Religious Leaders Meet for Interfaith Dialogue at Sinai Temple

As extensive security and police cruisers guarded the entrance, Rabbi David Wolpe, Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church, Najeeba Syeed-Miller, CEO of the Center for Civic Engagement and Dialogue, and Reverend Cecil “Chip” Murray, retired pastor of First AME Church came together at Sinai Temple in Westwood on Tuesday, April 20 for an interfaith dialogue in honor of the 62nd anniversary of Israel’s independence. Moderated by Tavis Smiley, PBS National Talk Show host, the event was also hosted by America Jewish Committee (AJC).

During the hour-long dialogue, Smiley directed pointed questions to each of the guests. Without shying away from the difficult issues, Smiley pressed them on questions of church and state, the value of inter-religious dialogue, and the reality of what could be accomplished through events like this.

Mentioning the introduction by Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel of Martin Luther King prior to King’s “I Have a Dream” speech nearly 40 years ago, Smiley asked the group to address the fact that “it seems like this kind of inter-religious dialogue has been going on for years.”

“I could suggest that the evidence suggests that it ain’t yielding a whole lot,” he said.

In response, Warren was frank: “I don’t think that dialogue has a very good track record, but working together does have a good track record. I don’t think you have to agree to get things done.”

Throughout the evening, a common theme was how to find issues upon which people of different faiths can agree, and therefore on which they can work together. The most important aspect of any interfaith effort, all panelists agreed, was that those involved treat one another with more than just tolerance, but respect, and even love.

“Tolerance is, you have your opinion, it’s wrong, but I’m not going to hurt you for it,” Wolpe said. “Love is, you have something to teach me, I have something to teach you, we have a connection that goes deeper even than our teaching. I see in you another image of God.”

Not only did this group talk on how people of different faiths can agree, but there were also prayer in multiple languages.

Did you notice that Rick went straight for the pragmatic jugular of working together? As Ken Silva at Apprising.org says in his piece “Rick Warren and Purpose Driven Roman Catholics” (concerning Rick Warren’s chameleon-like ability to change his colors):

…and this, yet again, is Warren professing to believe one thing and actually doing something else. So as I answer Dr. Piper’s request for “help to know why I should feel bad about this decision” I’ll tell you that the above would place Rick Warren, at the very least since it concerns a matter as central to the historic Christian faith as the Gospel of Jesus Christ, right here in Scripture — he is a double-minded man, which then makes him unstable in all his ways (James 1:8).

Rick is compromising the Word of God:

2 Corinthians 6:14-15 Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? (15) Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?

Yes, I understand that feeding the hungry, helping the poor, doing justice to those wronged are all Christian works, but where does Scripture say that we must yoke ourselves up to unbelievers to do it?

We don’t read where Rick, when given the opportunity, witnessed to these folks. Where is his concern and compassion for the LOST that were sitting in the room with him? Oh, that Rick would repent, and worship Christ alone! Then he would present the Gospel like a man of God, not a man-pleaser who downplays the very thing that makes us different from Jews, Muslims, and others of various faiths.

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Click here to Listen to it, or right-click and select “Save As” to save a copy on your local PC. You have my permission to burn the sermon to CD or put it on your IPOD, and distribute it to whomever you’d like.