what do you think of this vid ?

[heygeno]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHTgQ8zs ... ture=share

[steve]

Many of the quotes of popular preachers included in the video sound alarming. In certain contexts, they sound heretical. That's the problem, though, with the video: No context is given to inform us what these preachers meant. There are many preachers, even in non-emergent-type churches, who make statements that could sound damning if lifted from their contexts. It's a common thing for many preachers to make provocative-sounding statements—either to wake-up dreary congregants, or to surprise unbelievers by a new approach to stating old truths. I have heard almost nothing from any of these preachers, other than sound-bite excerpts presented by those wishing to brand them as heretics. Maybe some of them are heretics, but I would not be able to reach such a conclusion from such ambiguous sound-bites alone.

[mattrose]

I can see how this trailer would be appealing to heresy hunters, the sort of people who prefer to assume the worst about people and get their jollies from pointing out flaws in others.

Personally, having some familiarity with most of the men quoted, I think I know exactly what they were getting at and I would agree with the main point of almost all of them. For example:

1. Rick Warren is right that sitting through a sermon once a week is not really 'engaging' in discipleship.
2. Rob Bell is right that human life was formed from a combination of earth and the breath of God.
3. Doug Pagitt is probably right to question whether 'heaven' is a literal place in the sense that 'heaven' most rightly refers to the intermediate and not the eternal state.
4. Tony Jones is right that you can't absolutely prove the existence of God in the way that our culture prefers to 'prove' something
5. I don't really know where Dallas Willard was going with his 'everyone who 'deserves' to be saved will be saved. I'd guess that it was just a poor word choice and he was making a point like, 'everyone who has repented of their sins and is following Jesus will be saved'
6. The quotes endorsing Bono are probably right that we Christians who focus solely on head knowledge can learn something from someone that focuses on activism.
7. The gay affirming quote was bad, don't know who that was
8. I think the next quote was Tony Campolo saying "the church is a whore and my mother." That simply a recognition of the tension b/w the visible church and its attraction to worldly power and the invisible church and the necessity of being in community.
9. The hell quotes represent legitimate debate about the NATURE (not reality) of Hell in most cases.
10. The 'we need to listen to a few heretics' quote sounds alarming at first, until we realize that Jesus was considered a heretic in his day and was definitely someone they should have listened to. Often the true prophets are the one's whose words are labeled heresy. I would think that is what the last quote is suggesting.

Epic fail. I'll say it again (and passionately b/c I used to be one). Heresy hunting is a miserable existence. Love Jesus. Follow Jesus. Focus on the truth. Spit out the bad. Point it out when it is over an essential issue.

[TK]

I agree that soundbites like these provide very little to go on. I suppose someone like Tozer probably made a lot of statements, taken out of context, that would sound very questionable.

TK

[jeremiah]

i wholeheartedly echo what matt ,steve, and tk said.

it would seem the only fruit that may come from that video is confusion over what these alleged "heretics" really mean, and further unnecessary division of God's people. after a little digging at their website, i was not surprised to find what i would consider an unbalanced obsession with bible prophecy from a dispensational perspective. the website falsely proclaims christian universalism to be an outright denial of jesus' "emphasis" regarding hell. i am not a universalist, but i know that those who believe it to be what the scriptures teach, do not deny anything jesus said on the subject. they're convinced that universal reconciliation is what jesus taught about the ultimate fate of humanity. it then becomes a demonstration of engendering strife presuming evil intentions, instead of striving to understand what another brother who also calls on the Lord out of a pure heart, is trying to communicate.

if there is indeed anything dangerous or worthy of alarm taught by these men. and if this preview is a faithful summary of the full film. then i would say it would be a good example of how not to react. quote mining only reveals what the miner thinks the words meant.

grace and peace is with us...

[BrotherElliott]

If anybody is interested in learning more about Emergent, check out a documentary called The Real Roots of the Emergent Church: http://www.holybibleprophecy.org/films/ ... nt-church/

I know many critics have unfairly quoted Emergent leaders by taking isolated sound bytes out of context. In this film, we sought to be balanced, but did find the problems with Emergent theology more important to address than how they might be helping the church. We would appreciate any feedback.

[jeremiah]

hey whats up Elliot,
I watched y'all's film. On the whole i would say, well done. The bits about Ken Wilbur were definitely redflags, probably the most disturbing section. I would say though, the nature of Hell is a legitimate debate among christians and so i think that part gets blown a little out of proportion. but don't get me wrong, i wasn't in disagreement with everything y'all brought out on hell. for instance, the whole loving someone is bringing heaven here, and doing evil to the same is bringing hell here...i reluctantly say, well yeah, in some elastic sense that could be right. but if they say this is indeed what the scriptures witness about hell and the destruction of the wicked, well then i would say no, i disagree. i definitely believe hell will be a real place, and with tearful thanks to Jesus, i don't have to dread that condemnation. but still, i don't think the scriptures teach a hell of never ending conscious torment.
another debate within the church(quite apart from being exclusive to the emergents) is doctrine of the atonement. this is a debate that has been going on among those who fall flat on their face to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and cherish every word from him. i think it's a mistake to suggest the questioning of penal substitution's viability to be dangerous, and to reject it passes heresy, jumping to outright blasphemy. such a suggestion seems hasty and uncharitable to me.
other than those, i was definitely challenged to take a closer look at what these guys are teaching and saying. much of it was disturbing to say the least. thanks for your work Elliot...

grace and peace...

[BrotherElliott]

Thanks for checking out the movie and the constructive criticism Jeremiah. It seems to me that Emergents, especially Bell, McLaren and Pagitt, typically view heaven and hell that way probably because of the passages that speak of the Kingdom of Heaven as a present spiritual reality, but fail to make the distinction. In fact, Emergents often write and speak about the Kingdom, a truth of the Gospel that has been very much neglected by many evangelicals. But their treatment of heaven and hell as future realities after the Judgment tends to be lacking and attacking. In his book Love Wins, Rob Bell writes: "t’s important that we be honest about the fact that some stories are better than others.  Telling a story in which billions of people spend forever somewhere in the universe trapped in a black hole of endless torment and misery with no way out isn’t a very good story" (p.110). Conversely, Bell says that, “everybody enjoying God’s good world together with no disgrace or shame, justice being served, and all the wrongs being made right is a better story” (p.110). But is the "story" presented by Jesus?

It happened to be that the brothers we interviewed in the film were strong advocates for Penal Substitutionary Atonement. I don't think we need to believe in this view of the Atonement to be a Christian. Unfortunately, you're not the only person who watched the film and came away with that impression. What we really wanted to bring out in that section was the irreverent way in which Chalke and McLaren spoke about God as a child abuser of His Son. Whichever view of the Atonement we hold to, we must reckon with Isaiah's words: "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. . . . Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin" (Isaiah 53:4,10).

Thanks again and God bless.

[mattrose]

Back to the original link (I haven't watched 'brotherelliott's' video yet), I did a lil background research on some of the 'contexts' of these quotes and I'm thinking they REALLY took McLaren out of context. They quote him as saying "The cross is not the center then. It becomes a sort of false advertising for God" (my wording might not be exact).

Well, I looked up the interview in which he said that. He wasn't saying that about his own view! He was talking about a theology he disagrees with and saying that IT makes the cross secondary, not central. If they were using that quote to make it sound like Mclaren was saying the cross is not the center (of theology) than that is outright slander.

There is a small chance, I suppose, that they were using the quote to make Mclaren look bad for calling out that theology. The theology he was complaing about is the idea that God would actively torture people in hell for ever and ever. He was actually making what I would consider a strong point. If, in the end, God tortures his enemies forever.... the cross (where God dies for his enemies in love) can't really be considered the center of our theology. The cross, in that case, WOULD be false advertising for God. The center of our theology would have to be the Hell itself or the book of Revelation (interpreted in that way).

So either they committed super slander or they failed to see a pretty insightful point. I'm thinking the former.

[jeremiah]

this was admittedly the only information i had ever come across about brian mclaren prior to watching brotherelliot's film. it was a discussion between him and jame white. both men were very respectful and courteous to each other. i enjoyed it, thought i would share it here. http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/o ... B9D86DB8D}
grace and peace... (well as you can see the link didn't come through, sorry. i hope you remember how to copy and paste )