You might be interested in Bruxy’s MySpace blog where he lists McLaren as one of his favorite authors in the “favorite books” section (“I’m also currently digging The Secret Message of Jesus”). Perhaps I’ll direct his attention to your post here.

Now, I was not happy to see that McLaren is on the cover of Bruxy’s book because the emergent movement is headed directly away from biblical orthodoxy. I should make clear that I know most of these leaders personally (not McLaren) have attended their conferences, visited their churches, had lengthy arguments with them in public debate, blogs, email, and by phone.

McLaren is at this print doubting the reality of hell, saying universalism is okay for Christians, denying the need for penal substitution at the cross and suggesting that would be child abuse, and declaring all language to be indefinite and incapable of transmitting objective truth, and all “truth” to be discursive (which undermines the usefulness of Scripture, and flies in the face of what Jesus and Paul taught). So, I believe McLaren is a bad player, and I’m not surprised to see the top evangelical thinkers here and abroad finally critiquing his stuff.

One of their own, Mark Driscoll, has broken with them over their increasingly extreme theology. He was one of the original leaders of the movement gathered by Leadership Network. He participated in their leadership councils for a decade and knows exactly what they think. He mentions the following serious problems in his critique:
1. Scripture. This includes the divine inspiration, perfection,
and authority of Scripture.
2. Jesus Christ. This includes his deity and sovereignty over
human history as Lord.
3. Gender. This includes whether or not people are created with
inherent gender differences, whether or not those gender roles
have any implications for the governments of home and
church, and whether or not homosexual practice is sinful.
This also includes whether or not it is appropriate to use
gender specific names for God, such as Father, like Jesus did.
4. Sin. The primary issue here is whether or not human beings
are conceived as sinners or are essentially morally neutral and
are internally corrupted solely by external forces.
5. Salvation. The issue is whether Jesus Christ is necessary for
salvation and whether or not salvation exists for people in
other religions who do not worship Jesus Christ.
6. The Cross. The issue here is the doctrine of penal
substitution and whether or not Jesus died in our place for our
sins or if He went to the cross solely as an example for us to
follow when we suffer.
7. Hell. The issue is whether or not anyone will experience
conscious eternal torment, or if unbelievers will simply cease
to exist (annihilationism) or eventually be saved and taken to
heaven (universalism).
8. Authority. This issue is perhaps the most difficult of all.
Much of this conversation is happening online with blogs and
chat rooms. However, as the conversation becomes a conflict,
the inherent flaw of postmodernism is becoming a practical
obstacle to unity because there is no source of authority to
determine what constitutes orthodox or heretical doctrine.

With the authority of Scripture open for debate and even
long-established Church councils open for discussion (e.g. the
Council of Carthage that denounced Pelagius as a heretic for
denying human sinfulness), the conversation continues while
the original purpose of getting on mission may be overlooked
because there is little agreement on the message or the
mission of the Church.

I think there is a range of views represented within the group calling themselves emergent. You can see this range if you read the book, “Listening to the beliefs of emerging churches” (Zondervan) which ranges from Driscoll at the conservative end to Paggit and Ward at the liberal end. In between, you see Kimball and Burke, who are not that bad, whereas Paggit sounds like a non-believer. Driscoll’s views are no more liberal (probably more conservative) than ours. McLaren is at the liberal end of this continuum, in my opinion.

Keith mentioned their problems with evangelism, which are accute. Even one of their own leaders, McKnight, acknowledged that he sees a huge problem here — and it’s not just because they are ineffective at reaching non-Christian postmoderns (which would be a major problem, considering that their literature implies that they are the ones who know how this should be done) but that they are increasingly UNWILLING TO WITNESS AT ALL! This is because they don’t want to be arrogant in asserting that Christians are right and everyone else is wrong. So you just witness with your life, not your words. McLaren is in the vanguard of this view as you can see in his treatment of other religions in “A Generous Orthodoxy.” I can only say, my Bible does not take the same view of other religions that McLaren does. Rather than respecting them and learning from them, refusing to view what we teach as superior, Paul says the gods people worship are in fact demons. 1Cor. 10. New and Old Testament agree on this.

Why Navpress would have no problem with McLaren, or Zondervan, or Baker, is a baffling question. The only answer I can imagine is 1. they have no idea what he teaches, or (more likely) 2. Dollars and cents mean more than being faithful to God’s word.

I think, Bruxy, you should consider removing his endorsement if you issue a new edition of your book. Also, Secret Message was a more innocuous book. You should also read his more inflamatory stuff like Generous Orthodoxy, and you should read some of the careful and fair critiques by many of the leading thinkers in the Christian world today, such as D. A. Carsen, Millard Eriksen (editor of RECLAIMING THE CENTER:
CONFRONTING EVANGELICAL ACCOMMODATION IN POSTMODERN TIMES, which includes a dozen of our best theologians writing essays about why they are so worried about the movement), and many others. Groothius’ book, Truth Decay is good.

Amazingly, it has taken over ten years for the evangelical church to realize what we are dealing with in the emergent movement, and they are still partially asleep on this. But I do believe that finally we will see in the next few years the believing church mobilize against at least the extreme liberal wing of this movement.

First, I did want to say the Meeting House visit, especially the lunch visit with Paul Morris and the other folks was one of the most wonderful highlights of the trip. I’m mighty grateful to Andy for coordinating and for Paul treating us like kings. I had a fantastic “universal/global Church” experience in our conversations.

I wish there were churches like that at various times in my life when I was thirsting for meaningful fellowship in a dynamic Body of Christ. There are lots of saved people out there who aren’t able to serve or make much of an impact for Christ in large part because they’re holed up in spiritually dying churches. The Meeting House is such a young fellowship — man, there’s SUCH amazing potential there to ready troops to save the lost.

Bruxy, if you’re still tuning in, I also have some responses to “emergent”/”postmodern”/etc.:

First off, let me acknowledge I’m no exhaustive authority on Canada and that most of my understanding of Canada and cultural/philosophical attitudes has come from a couple of Canadian friends. (Hmm, and maybe the local rebroadcast of CBC’s “As It Happens.”) One was from Edmonton, the other Toronto, they were fellow faculty members at an art school where I taught and with whom I became friends — one I’d consider a very close friendship.

More often without giving any explicit name to it, I have to say a postmodern worldview ran deeper in them than most friends (or radio!) that I’ve encountered. And maybe the term “postmodern” has become outdated and fallen out of use, but, for the record, at least in 1980s academia, it was apparently ALL the rage amongst Canadian scholars. My closer of the two Canadian faculty friends wore postmodernism — BY NAME, I should note! — like a badge of honor. It was the axis of her graduate writing and artwork, and I’d go so far as to say it was central to her identity. She most certainly “rallied around it,” at least 20 years ago. Canada is a bit more European-y and more philosophically progressive than the USA. From what I can tell, postmodernism has run so deep so long there, if Canadians aren’t really using the word anymore, I can only imagine that it’s akin to talking fish not needing a word for water because their environment is all-encompassing and taken for granted.

When Francis Schaeffer was writing critically about postmodernism in the 1960s, I don’t believe postmodernism even had its name yet. Following in the footsteps of the great Saint Francis, call the trends nothing in particular if you want, but there ARE history-changing philosophies that have evolved and permeated Western culture that make teaching, evangelizing, and living out biblical Christianity something that requires more discernment than ever in history. Beware the prowling, destructive lion…! And considering the spiritual warfare we’re involved in, Christianity is SO much about “taking sides” and working together as believers to separate God’s truth from the World’s deception. I often recall C.S. Lewis in “Mere Christianity” about how neutrality is not an option that we have.

On the surface, the whole “Emergent” scene is offering everything I was STARVING for at those times when I was trying to find meaningful fellowship in a culturally relevant church. Knowing how deep one has to dig to get to the more heretical aspects of Emergent, I really wonder if I would have recognized any danger anywhere in it. Bruxy, if you haven’t already, I would encourage you to dig deep enough until it’s 100% clear what Xenos finds objectionable and why, and then form your position.

I’m really proud of what you Meeting House guys are doing up there. I would also say that I think you may be at a pivotal crossroads for the future of your church. It sounds like you guys may be in conversation with some heavy-hitter Xenos leaders, but if you think it might in any way be constructive, I’d be more than happy to carry on any discussions with you guys myself as well.

- Michael

But I have to go as I am here chilling in Daytona Beach!

My challenge now is that the book is off to the publishers and Brian McLaren’s endorsement/foreword is part of it. NavPress is a Christian publisher that I have great respect for and I have checked with them about McLaren’s theology and they saw no problems with his endorsement for The End of Religion. I am caught, because I trust NavPress and the Navigators organization as much as I trust Xenos.

I suppose this means that we at The Meeting House are going to be pulled into the “Emerging Church” debate whether we like it or not. This is new to us, but I suppose we better get used to it. Ah, well, we can’t choose all of our battles. Thank you for providing research on the subject to get us started. In the meantime, thank you also for your grace as we join in late to this conversation in progress.

Peace to you, Bruxy

I guess we stirred up a little controversy, and unfortunately I’m on my to Florida, but I certainly wanted to reassure our brothers from The Meeting House that we still have a great interest in both your ministry and fruit.

Earlier I (rather incautiously) said, “they’re not getting the job done,” in reference to the Transfer Growth issue. I don’t mean to devalue the powerful and significant role of your ministry with such words, because I think it’s rather normal in a healthy church situation to have an 80/20 mix, and most churches with a higher percentage of secular influx find it difficult to maintain sanctification in the fellowship.

I apologize for those words said so publicly and harshly. I was wrong, and I wronged you with them. It’s because you do have a thriving and spiritual ministry that we do in fact enjoy both your sermons and your ministry efforts. Especially of interest is the Teleporting, because we’ve considered such things as well.

On the McLaren issue, however, Mr. Cavey, I would strongly urge you to read his “Uncommon Orthodoxy” or whatever it’s called. And I’m fully aware that McLaren is very likely a brother-in-Christ with honorable intentions. However, his doctrine is distinctly NeoOrthodox with variations.

Perhaps what makes McLaren seem appealing to you, Bruxy, is his disdain for regimented / stale orthodoxy and the “traditions of men,” which we all know are the disposable “wineskins.” His language is intriguing, and he would probably sound to you like a kindred spirit. However, his doctrine is unstable and confused, at best. I think you may wish to look at our growing collection of Emergent research at http://neonets.org/pmwiki/fields/biblenet/index.php/EmergentChurch/EmergentChurch . Notes from the D.A. Carson conference, in which Carson decisively deals with it, are found at http://neonets.org/pmwiki/fields/biblenet/index.php/EmergentChurch/Carson2007-Keith

I’m afraid that having McLaren endorse your book will become a decisive anti-endorsement. You should really do a little more research on this issue — you’ll not be disappointed.

As for “labels”, well, how else do we ultimately categorize the vast field(s) of theological issues we have to wrestle with? I don’t mean to stereotype, but it’s true that general and significant issues do fall under the category of sub-orthodox Christianity. McLaren’s theology, unfortunately, needs some serious fine-tuning. In the final analysis, the Emergents aren’t reaching the lost … they’re reaching disenfranchised Christians. But it’s unclear what they’re doing with them after that.

And also, as for my comments about Dennis, I can’t say for certain what his attitude is, as I indicated in my posting — it was more of a subjective tone I picked up, which I’ll happily clarify later.

Your brother and admirer in Christ,
Keith McCallum
Sr. Pastor, NEO Xenos

Thanks for posting your conversations. Better than being critical in a corner speaking in hushed tones. Sorry to “eves-drop” - someone directed us to this thread.

There is lots to say in response, but this probably isn’t the place for an essay, so I’ll just mention a few quick points:

1. Sorry I wasn’t speaking the Sunday you visited. We had a guest from the States, which is rare for us. You can listen online through our web site (or look up The Meeting House or Bruxy Cavey in iTunes to hear our podcast) if you want to hear me or one of our other pastors teaching.

2. Thank you for the kind comments about my contribution to the summer institute.

3. I think we in Canada have missed the whole “Emerging Church” debate. It isn’t language we use to describe ourselves (or any other church, for that matter). It just isn’t part of our language. (And, by the way, neither is “postmodern”. We just don’t rally around or fight against labels like that to find our identity.) It is frustrating for us because we wonder if we have to adopt an American term of categorization and debate, deciding which side we are on and then joining in with argument against the other side just in order to be understood south of the border. I confess that we sometimes wonder why our American brothers and sisters seem to tend to polerize themselves into “us” and “them” setups on various issues so quickly. It feels like the debates often take the shape of trying to decide who is a real Christian and who is the heretic rather than being a debate among brothers and sisters who want to believe the best in each other (until proven different). In the meantime, you could listen to a two-part podcast we recorded on our reaction to the rumours we hear south of the border about “The Emerging Church”. We have a podcast for our church leaders called “The Roundtable”. Look it up in iTunes, give a listen, and you’ll hear that we just don’t perceive ourselves as “emerging” or “emergent” or whatever term is creating all the fuss. But you will also hear that our disposition tends to be, “Is there anything we can learn from them, even if we disagree from them?” rather than, “Since we disagree with them, they must be on a slippery slope straight to hell.”

4. I didn’t realize the name Brian McLaren was such a sensitive point. We met at a couple of events where we were both speaking and he seems like a genuine brother who is working hard at following Jesus. I didn’t sense any hint of rebellion or delight in causing trouble. We may not agree about every point of theology, but my guess is that would be true of any two of us. Brian likes my book and I appreciate him endorsing it. I guess a “thumbs up” by him will be translated into a “thumbs down” in certain church circles, like Xenos. But please don’t jump to conclusions based on guilty-by-association. Jesus had problems with his reputation for the same reasons.

5. Yes, I like Brian’s book, The Secret Message of Jesus. It is my first Brian McLaren book which I read because it is along the same lines as The End of Religion. Again, I found points in his book that I would disagree with absolutely, but it would not occur to me to make that my main reaction. I took away a lot of good from his book and would recommend it to anyone who wants to drill deeper into the message and mission of Jesus. I’m afraid I’ve missed the scandal that reading and enjoying a Brian McLaren book provides. I think it is healthy to read books that represent divergent points of view and learning what we can. I think The Secret Message of Jesus has lots of good things to say and I’m not sure why that is so threatening.

6. About The Meeting House, we are a Home Church based community who also meet on Sundays for shared teaching. Just because the teaching happens via video at many of our sites is not a concern for us since real church happens for us when we meet face-to-face in homes to discuss, fellowhsip, pray, and apply what we are learning. Home Church is, for us, where we put all our eggs - discipleship and service to the community. Each Home Church is commissioned to take on a benevolence focus, often serving in partnership with other compassion ministries in the city. Our way of doing church has some overlap with Xenos, but is also different. It feels foreign to me to automatically see the differences as deficiencies, either way.

7. (I’ll make this my last point - since “7” seems like a good pastoral note to end on…) I wonder if part of the misunderstandings between our churches is actually a cultural “miss”. Our churches come from different cultures, so there is a thousand different ways we say things and do things. I don’t just mean Canadian vs. American, but also Anabaptist vs. Evangelical. (We come from an Anabaptist more than Evangelical background.) For now, I just want to say, thank you for your concern for our church in general, myself in particular, and for book. I guess I would just ask that your concerns take the form of questions rather than conclusions based on appearance, and that they motivate you to pray for us. We would love to have the prayers of our Xenos brothers and sisters. You should know that we pray for you all regularly. We are very accessible, easy to contact, so feel free to write us with any questions.

Wishing you all increasing Faith, Hope, & Love,

Bruxy Cavey