Is it the Message, or the Men?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

I would say that this is a relatively sound way to put it. And my thoughts about the writers that I prefer to read (although I must admit that my appetite for reading is often diminished between too much eye strain looking at tax laws and returns on a computer all day and allergies) are of the kind that are often preachers at a single church and write. Swindol, Alcorn, Driscoll, Bell (Rob, not Michael), McKnight, Spencer, McLaren, Tickle, Fitch, and others. Some of the readers here probably have no idea who some of those are. I will admit at least two of those are very controversial, and I am very careful as I read them not to get sucked-in to something that could be error — in some ways as bad or worse than Lee. We'll leave it at that.

But while these people influence their readers, those readers generally remain within some group that provides a base and framework within which to assess what they read. It is only when, as you say, the readers become a collection of direct followers that there begin to be real problems (at least potentially) especially when other sources of spiritual diet are removed.

Can you provide the first names of these teachers, too, so I can look them up. Thanks!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Can you provide the first names of these teachers, too, so I can look them up. Thanks!

The list was off the top of my head and was far from all. But these were either more notable, or more recent.

Charles (Chuck) Swindol ((might be 2 Ls) Frisco Bible Church, current or former Dallas Theo Chancellor or something like that)
Randy Alcorn (Can't remember much of his creditials. But he has several well-known books out there.)
Mark Driscoll (not a lot from this one and is recently somewhat controversial)
Rob Bell (of Velvet Elvis, and more recently Love Wins fame - or infamy)
Scot McKnight (Preacher, writer, college professor)
Michael Spencer (preacher and orignal "Internet Monk" (he is not Catholic); only wrote one book - Mere Churchianity; died in 2011)
Brian McLaren (highly controversial. Read to discover the appeal and to decide where "Emergent" theology was going)
Phyllis Tickle (Magazine and book editor, and writer on Christian trends)
David Fitch (Seminary professor. Writes on postmodernism, post-Christendom (meaning the forms, not the essence of being Christian))

Of the ones I listed, I take Swindol as a serious, regular guy among us.
McKnight is trying to re-engage people with Christ and the mission of the church.
Fitch is critiquing what seems (to him) to be misaiming in the forms and practices of the church.
The others are mostly to challenge me to think. Even the highly questionable McLaren raises issues that are seriously worthy of thinking about. The problem with him is that he so often does not say anything about what he thinks on the issues. Then when he finally does . . . run for the hills!!

I would have listed others but the names would not come to me. That seems to be a regular thing with me. I remember by use and names I don't use are forgotten. Often can't remember the names of famous secular writers of books I have read.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

The list was off the top of my head and was far from all. But these were either more notable, or more recent.

Charles (Chuck) Swindol ((might be 2 Ls) Frisco Bible Church, current or former
Dallas Theo Chancellor or something like that)

Yes. Well known, very traditional.

Randy Alcorn (Can't remember much of his creditials. But he has several well-known books out there.)

He's one that picked up on our heavenly home actually being the new earth.

Mark Driscoll (not a lot from this one and is recently somewhat controversial)

I read his "Doctrine." An approachable mainstream evangelical theology study. Very well written.

Rob Bell (of Velvet Elvis, and more recently Love Wins fame - or infamy)

Yes, I read "Velvet Elvis," and browsed "Love Wins."

Scot McKnight (Preacher, writer, college professor)
Brian McLaren (highly controversial. Read to discover the appeal and to decide where "Emergent" theology was going)

The emergent church doesn't interest me much. But I think it is worth observing.

Michael Spencer (preacher and orignal "Internet Monk" (he is not Catholic); only wrote one book - Mere Churchianity; died in 2011)

Sad. He had a very popular blog. I disagreed with him once on it, and went after him (as you know I am wont to do) and he banned me from his site. lol.

Phyllis Tickle (Magazine and book editor, and writer on Christian trends)
David Fitch (Seminary professor. Writes on postmodernism, post-Christendom (meaning the forms, not the essence of being Christian))

Don't know these. I'll check them out. Thanks.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

He's one that picked up on our heavenly home actually being the new earth.

Yes, he did. But there was so much of his book, Heaven, that seemed to cater to a whole lot more of "what kind of body will we have" speculation and less on what it should instruct us on today. And what it did say in that line was lost on the "everything is grace" crowd (mostly the people older than us).

Originally Posted by Igzy

The emergent church doesn't interest me much. But I think it is worth observing.

"Emergent," along with "emerging" was such an important study just three years ago. But since Love Wins and McLaren has finally said what he believes in a couple of books, emergent has lost much support, and as a result, you don't hear much about emerging even though it is still trucking along.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Sad. He had a very popular blog. I disagreed with him once on it, and went after him (as you know I am wont to do) and he banned me from his site. lol.

I still follow the blog. It is probably better understood as emerging, although some other blogs with references to "Emergent Friends" classify it as emergent. I can't say I always agree with everything. But it is more soundly complete in its coverage of spirituality, worship, etc.

Actually, the closest to following any blogs are those of the Internet Monk (Spencer's legacy) and Jesus Creed (Scot McKnight). When I read these, I am challenged concerning the things that my natural comfort zones (Bible churches, possibly Baptist to Presbyterian/reformed) too often leave out. Or have at least left out for many years.

Protestantism has a history of tossing so much of what came before it aside to focus very exclusively on their "new thing" (which was, of course, mostly something simply out of focus, or ignored in recent history). And the Evangelical/fundamental branches did a lot of tossing aside in the past 100 or so years that, thanks to the noise created by the Emergents, and shepherded along by the many more sound "emergings," have begun to find their way back into our practice. Oh, there have always been some groups, like the Full Gospel Business Men's Fellowship, but most of the Evangelical/fundamental branches have thought like the LRC and declared that Biblical justice should be left to the government or the "liberal" churches. There is much to say about some of the theology of the liberal churches, but they did not abandon the needy like the rest of us did during the last 100 years.

I read McLaren because as he was veering off course, he was speaking the things that were driving him that way. Too much of the things that he saw as problems in the evangelical church were really problems. His earlier works had some validity in that they looked beyond the dogmas to the core issues of the faith. His problem is that he would appear to have sort of "chucked it all" and called it a new kind of Christianity.

In the mean time, McKnight is consistently speaking to the real truth of the Bible. As the Emergents started falling off of cliffs, he separated himself from that (not that he was ever in that deep). While I have admitted that my reading has been more limited in he past few years, I still consider his work among the more important today because it is not just better knowledge repackaged to tickle the ears of a new generation, but is engaging for the practice of the Christian life (which is far more important than how good your doctrines are).

And returning to the topic of this thread, excluding those who would lead the faithful astray (McLaren? Bell?), the important thing about these writers an teachers is that they do not do it to create a following. They will be the first to tell you that writing books is not a money-making proposition. They write because they feel they have something important to say.

But in the LRC, the writing is about money. And Nee and Lee are the primary cash cows — at least as long as they can keep the people declaring "Brother Lee said . . . ." They will cut up the existing books into segments, throw them into a popcorn popper, grab a few as they pop up, and create a new book out of it. The result for them? More money. The result for the faithful? More nonsense.

I doubt that they ever print a single page of something that they do not think will sell sufficiently to make it a profitable book. Despite the stranglehold on "standing orders," they must know that if it wanders too far from either classic Lee or the Bible (as Nee and Lee have modified it) there will be some pushback.

But as long as Lee said it, there is a man-made lake (as opposed to a sea) of people ready to buy their wares. To put yet one more volume of Lee, or at least repackaged Lee, onto their dwindling shelf space.

And as long as the target is a an-made lake, they must keep the man who made it securely at the top of their hierarchy.

[awareness]

My reading has been wide and wild, according to my cradle religion, and the local church. (Links embedded)

Right now I'm enjoying "Original Blessing" by Matthew Fox.

Zeek and I are reading it, and talking on cell phones about it. We both find original blessing (as opposed to original sin) a breath of fresh air - and a great way of seeing things. God started with original blessing, not original sin. And there's still plenty of His original blessing to go around.

Eusebius Church History - He's really something else. But it provides a window into how they thought in the 4th c.

The Story of B by Danial Quinn

I also like:

Professor Bart Erhman : on the Greek manuscripts and early Christianity.

And Bishop John Shelby Spong - a non-theist Christian ... and of the ->Jesus Seminar<-. And I've been known to get Funky, as in Robert Funk, who founded the Jesus Seminar.

But I don't fully agree with any of them.

After the local church can we really hook up to any man?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by awareness

After the local church can we really hook up to any man?

I think there's capacity to receive ministers and ministries in the plural sense, but there's a spiritual consciousness that will not sell out for any minister or any ministry.