Brian McLaren exposed by a Stupak question...
(Tim, w/thanks to Kamilla) Christians who voted for Barack Obama and now support centralized government health care normally are great supporters of that Emergent businessman, Brian McLaren. You can warn them away from him, but they persevere in their adulation because he speaks their language as no one else. As one woman put it to me, he answers the questions of my heart.
McLaren has been quite influential in getting such naifs to support Barack Obama while convincing themselves that he (Obama) is pro-life. In other words, that he opposes abortion. Well, maybe not actually "opposes"--that may be taking it a bit too far. It might be better to say that he wishes he opposed abortion. Or maybe better yet, that he wishes others thought of him as opposing abortion.
Maybe best to say that sometimes, very late at night, he admits to himself that he wishes "those people" would have fewer abortions. But then, what's a poor boy to do?
Anyhow, as I said, McLaren is the guy that seduced them all to board this ship and now, courtesy of Brian's grandpa, Jim Wallis, we know precisely how opposed to abortion McLaren isn't.
Clearnote Churches
Clearnote Fellowship
Christ the Word
Monthly archive
- May 2013 (18)
- April 2013 (33)
- March 2013 (43)
- February 2013 (28)
- January 2013 (41)
- December 2012 (31)
- November 2012 (37)
- October 2012 (38)
- September 2012 (21)
- August 2012 (28)
- July 2012 (46)
- June 2012 (50)
Popular Posts
Tags
Recent Comments
- Craig French on Inflammatory rhetoric in the abortion debate...
- David Gray on Inflammatory rhetoric in the abortion debate...
- Joseph Bayly on Inflammatory rhetoric in the abortion debate...
- Sophie on Inflammatory rhetoric in the abortion debate...
- Kamilla on The difference between pro-life and anti-antiabortion...
Comments
It's telling that McLaren is more or less suggesting that federal funding for prenatal infanticide is equivalent to a "neutral" position on prenatal infanticide.
Is Mclaren a biological, or just theological, grandson of Wallis?
Key quotes from McLaren's piece:
"However, Evangelicals like me who have migrated away from the Republican Party have done so... because we embraced a broader range of moral issues than just the three anti-s imposed upon us by conservative Evangelical and Republican leaders."
His tone makes clear that a more honest rendering would change the words "than just" to "by abandoning". The tone is strengthened by the word "imposed" - making clear that he thinks the church leaders are providing these marching (and voting) instructions rather than God.
"True, very few if any of us could be considered pro-abortion even if we are pro-choice."
Having been in a place where I said something similar in my past before Christ called and washed me, this is the sort of statement that occurs when you don't see real evil, or when you think isolated incidents of yelling at abortionists compares to the slaughter.
Christ, have mercy on us.
Theological, if you can call it that...
Diabological?
Sorry, I just couldn't resist....
>"True, very few if any of us could be considered pro-abortion even if we are pro-choice."
This statement is so hopelessly confused and contradictory that one wonders if the mind that conceived it isn't sectioned off into independent and completely disconnected compartments. Or it is Orwellian double speak. Frankly I don't think McLaren is intelligent enough for the latter. He can get away with this only because the heart of the people, in the words of Christ quoting Isaiah, has become dull.
Other than what I have been able to glean from this blog I am ignorant as to the essential attributes of the Emergent church.
If someone could please explain the characteristics that distinguish Emergents from the garden variety Liberals that have plagued American Evangelicalism for well nigh a century I would be most grateful.
Thank you
Don: from what I can tell, the Emergents have merely repackaged liberalism into something more up to date for our times. The old ear-tickling techniques needed some modernizing in order to better serve our present-day idols.
There was a throng just waiting to fill this need and so they appeared: young, hip, sauve, politically-correct (idol, check), environmentally sensitive (another idol,check), social gospel (check), casual garb with a disdain for authority and institutions (idol, check), feeling-oriented (contemporary idol, check), dislike for creeds or "oppressive doctrines" (check), elevation of the arts (Western idol, check), urban-centered with a disdain for small-town "hicky" religion (you will not find Emergent churches in rural areas).
Just think of any idol that our American culture worships and you will find that idol to be one of the Emergent church distictives.
Emergent churches talk a lot about postmodern ethics, or at least did before they found a new philosophical movement, and they therefore end up using a quite different hermeneutic than Bible-believing churches tend to use. Truths of the Scripture tend to be a bit more "negotiable" there, and they tend to end up in about the same point as liberals without sounding like liberal theologians who outright deny the truths of Scripture.
Culturally, they tend to mimic the culture, and even on Sunday morning, you're likely to see the pastor in jeans and a t shirt in an effort to be able to relate to those in attendance. You'll see chairs and couches and theater style seating instead of classic church architecture, for the most part.
For a better picture (that which you see with your own eyes), follow the links that our gracious host provides from time to time.
Add new comment