Tag Archives: Brian McLaren
The ministry team at Surgir Locura (formerly First Baptist Mennonite Church before converting to Emergent philosophy) donned pantomime regalia and performed a dynamic equivalence interpretation of 2Corinthians 12:7 to the tune of Poison’s rock-n-roll ballad Every Rose Has a Thorn… No one in the audience understood let alone gained any benefit from the dramatic display, however, the church was able to find a use for the white gloves they purchased for the handbell choir in 1968…
Image borrowed from www.thereformedtraveler.wordpress.com . Caption by Truthinator.
“Tower, this is Emergent Airlines flight A29 from Seattle to Grand Rapids and it appears the airport is upside down. Please rotate immediately…”
When you’re Emergent, if you don’t like what you see, you can redefine it!
I have noticed that not very many blogs have addressed the topic of Campus Crusade for Christ changing their name to Cru so as not to offend. Why is this? I’m not sure.
Anyhoo, here is my take. Are they bad folks? Probably not. Is it wrong for them to do ministry under a new name? No. Did they fumble the ball when trying to do PR about their name change? ABSOLUTELY.
Here is how I got there. They whole info download about their decision to change their name smelled like low tide at the docks. Their spokesman said they changed their name because Campus and Crusade were causing them problems when trying to minister to people. I have two major problems with this.
1) If Campus and Crusade were the offenders, then why did they leave out Christ? (cue the crickets) There is no answer other than maybe they simply forgot to include Christ when they coined a new name. Probably not that one. So was it really Christ that was the offender and they were too lily-livered to admit it? This is what I fear is the correct answer. I hope I am wrong.
2) When choosing a new name sans Campus and Crusade (and Christ for that matter), why on earth would they choose Cru? This makes no sense whatsoever. Cru is simply short for crusade… Duh!
There are several possibilities as to why things happened the way they did. The one I fear is their leadership may have been taught and/or influenced by the pragmatic seeker friendly and Emergent under tow that has captivated the apostate church.
Many, many folks have been influenced by the potentates of pragmatism. You will catch more flies with honey than vinegar is the common thought. Hogwash! You are not catching anything. If people are being caught so to speak for God’s kingdom, He is doing it. Your pragmatic showmanship and Drucker-styled leadership isn’t doing a thing but deceiving you if you are on the pragmatic bus.
How on earth or in Heaven can you better represent Christ without His name than with it? SOMEONE PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION FOR ME.
And when you answer, please quote God and not Rick Warren, Robert Schuler, or Brian McLaren… I’ll be waiting.
First, there was the Living Bible, then the Message, now B.L.Z. Bubb Publishing House introduces the Emergent Bible! This baby is blank from page 1 to page 1659. You don’t have to worry about giving up anything when you follow this version. When approached by a Calvinist concerning the total depravity of man, you can truthfully say that your Bible doesn’t mention depravity. Help an Arminian friend who is concerned about losing his salvation (again). Your Bible doesn’t mention salvation at all. Better yet, write your own text! Divorce, adultery, fornication… no problem! For only $19.95 you can make it up as you go along with the Emergent Bible. Sold everywhere Love Wins, A Generous Orthodoxy, and other such felt-needs classics are sold…
You hear it said all around you these days. “We have to broaden our appeal if we are to reach our culture.” ” We have to be relevant if we are to reach our community.” Ok, so far so good. However, the devil is in the details (so to speak). How far can you go in broadening your appeal or being relevant without going too far?
I studied for and received an MBA degree several years ago. I had been studying the seeker and emergent programs for about 8 years prior. I was surprised to find that the methods used in marketing & advertising of consumer goods are the EXACT SAME ONES being used by many of the new-fangled church growth programs.
Let me count the problems with this.
1) God and His word is not a consumer good that can be judged on the basis of the presumed merit in the mind of a shopper. The church attenders assume the posture of consumers and they demand to be entertained or they will simply move on to the next supplier.
2) People cannot be influenced to ‘accept’ God or to ‘make a decision’ for God. Examples where people were manipulated into joining a church instead of being saved show that simply joining a church results in a falling away very soon afterwards. Often, the people are disillusioned and bitter for having been ‘sold a bill of goods’ by a religious system. Contrast this to people who hear God’s word and cry out to Jesus for salvation. They persevere in the faith.
3) Worldly people who are lured into a church because of world-mimicking gimmicks do not last very long in that church. Statistics tell us this fact. The reason for this is that the church is a poor substitute for the flesh-satisfying lies of the world. A flesh-lite substitute will soon be replaced by a fully flesh-satisfying vice provided by the world.
There are more items but this should suffice for this discussion.
So, when the church promotes gimmicks in order to increase their attendance, exactly whom is being fooled? I am afraid the church is the one being fooled. God builds His Church. His sovereign gift of salvation by grace through faith in His Son Jesus is the only “process” that is valid. God directs, we respond. God transforms, we conform to the image of Christ (slowly over time).
So how much cultural contextualization is too much? The amount that confuses the issue of sovereignty.
Never give people the wrong impression of who is God and who is not. Expound upon the greatness of God. Tell God’s WHOLE story. Some people’s lives will be changed. We were never called by God to sharpen His brand. He needs no spiffing up to be marketable in 2011. God is as Relevant now as when He created everything.
As I continue to come across Driscoll’s teachings, I see that in some places he states a very traditional interpretation of Acts and of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. At other times he says confusing things about the gifts being fully functional today as they were in Acts. I conclude the difference to be a clumsy method of conversational speech. He seems to employ a very conversational form of speaking. Lacking formality could explain why he seems to contradict himself.
Addendum: New Information