Pine Ridge, NBC, & Politics
By Brian on Nov 30, 2007
Saw the NBC Nightly News piece about Pine Ridge Church tonight (segment video: streaming, QuickTime download). Generally it was a fair portrayal, though the obvious story angle was about politics (with a strong side dish of sexual preference politics thrown in).
I think NBC is guilty of defining churches like Pine Ridge by how they compare to the churches led by older generations instead of judging them on their own merits, and that’s a trap that Pine Ridge and others fall into themselves as well. It’s easy to define ourselves by how we differ from previous generations, but that’s the easy and cheap way out. If we really think we’re doing something fundamentally different, we should let that stand on its merits instead of defining it as the antithesis of that from which we’ve grown.
Let’s honor the tradition from where we came and also boldly pursue the vision that God has given us.
UPDATE: The clip that initially struck me as most questionable was a quote from Jennifer Snipe that seemd to be in reference to homosexuality: “I think that’s a personal issue, set aside from any kind of church issues.” I wondered whether she meant to say it that way, if she meant to say it a different way but that’s how it came out, or if the quote was used out of context. According to Tadd, Jennifer’s answer was in response the question, “How do you see politics and the church affecting the 2008 election?” So it seems it was unfairly taken out of context.
Interesting how that sword just cuts both ways isn’t it?
Churches like Pine Ridge seem to want to build a niche and carve out a “different” place in Christianity, specifically by creating straw-men arguments against historical orthodox churches, in order to establish their rebellion and purpose for existence.
It is ironic how this distinction is appreciated when it benefits their man-made agendas, but when the same distinction is made in reverse, all of a sudden it is a burden.
I thought Mohler made excellent points in the segment. It saddens me how this “debate” is constantly turned into a generational gap or traditional preference argument, rather than one of substance and truth. Sure ages and styles may be noticeably different, but regardless of age and styles, what it always boils down to is:
Is the Bible the authority, what does it say, and are we going to obey it?
Tony Rose | Nov 30, 2007 | Reply
“Is the Bible the authority, what does it say, and are we going to obey it?”
This is the heart of the matter. The seeker sensitive new evangelicals do not trust that the Scriptures are sufficient to bring people Christ.
And so instead of preaching the Biblical Gospel they end up relying upon their own “innovation.” Sadly, Tadd sounds just like all the other church planter types he has on his blog roll.
Frankly, as a pastor myself, I think they need to grow up.
Ken Silva | Nov 30, 2007 | Reply
Well said Ken.
Tony Rose | Nov 30, 2007 | Reply
Pine Ridge is only a couple months into their existence and you guys are railing on them pretty hard. The preacher is young as well. Let them find their niche and do their thing for a while before passing final judgment, IF that’s what needs to happen. More power to them for giving it a go with enthusiasm.
If the doctrine is off, it will show up. It seems Tadd has a group around him to help him stay grounded to the Bible.
Vince Powell | Nov 30, 2007 | Reply
For sure Vince. No one is criticizing enthusiasm, motive, or future words, but his public and pulpit historical words are fair subjects for comparing to Scripture as we are instructed to do in Scripture.
I hope the group around him you talk about are Biblically grounded themselves. In this article at Liberty:
http://www.liberty.edu/academics/religion/seminary/index.cfm?PID=15929
…Tadd is quoted as saying he…
Not sure what was going on there, but it seems to me that the Bible should be the authority and not Tadd’s vision. If a vision isn’t Biblical and you’ve “dismissed” those who can demonstrate that to you, well……
Tony Rose | Nov 30, 2007 | Reply
“If the doctrine is off, it will show up. ”
The point is, it already has show up off. And it is because, “Tadd has a group around him to help him stay grounded to the Bible,” in that wrong man-centered new evangelical seeker sensitive approach.
You see, enthusiasm–no matter how sincere–is no substitute for the power of God the Holy Spirit. And for the record, Tadd is the one who attacked those like me who hold the correct Reformed Biblical Christian faith.
Ken Silva | Dec 1, 2007 | Reply
This message describes what a biblical church looks like at a time when many churches have utterly abandoned the Scriptural model of ministry.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sermonID=42607163841
Tony Rose | Dec 1, 2007 | Reply
I hate to break up the “Tony & Ken Negativity Hour” here
but … I just wanted to say to Brian, thanks for posting this and being transparent about things at Pine Ridge. I wish you guys all the best.
I really believe I have common ground with Tony and Ken on the fact that there are things seriously wrong with the evangelical church. Unfortunately we disagree about how to go about affecting positive change.
So, not to make you “pick sides,” Brian, but I hope you and others at Pine Ridge will consider being a part of the “Everything Must Change Tour” with Brian McLaren in Charlotte, Feb. 1-2 (www.deepshift.org/charlotte). I really think it’ll be a good catalyst for mobilizing Christians to put their faith into action.
Shalom,
Steve K.
Steve K. | Dec 4, 2007 | Reply
I will leave you to head further into your “Peace Where There Is No Peace Hour.” But before I do I’ll just say, the only solution for the dying American Christian Church is to purge leaven like Brian McLaren from among it, and not to follow the emerging (incorporating Heretics R’ Us) church, and embrace its neo-liberalism.
Know this: The original Cult of Liberal Theology poisoned, and killed, the mainline denomination and its spiritually prurient progeny in this man-centered semi-pelagian new evangelicalism will do the exact same thing to the mainstream of American Christianity.
If one so desires, they may now place their heads back into the spiritual sand.
Ken Silva | Dec 4, 2007 | Reply
Steve K.,
On the tour where “Everything Must Change,” is the gospel message included in the “Everything?” Or is it the: “Everything but the Gospel Must Change?”
Do you think when Paul said to the Galatian church that he was…
… that they considered that the “Paul Negativity Hour?”
Perhaps they did, and that is why in chapter 4 verse 16 he had to ask,
tr
Tony Rose | Dec 4, 2007 | Reply
Tony,
I’d encourage anyone who is questioning Brian McLaren’s take on the Gospel to read Brian’s recent comments, which Mike Clawson has posted here:
http://emergingpensees.blogspot.com/2007/10/brian-mclaren-clarifies.html
I doubt that this will satisfy most of Brian’s critics, such as yourself, but hopefully this will at least encourage some folks who are inspired by Brian’s writings but are concerned about a “slippery slope” into “heresy.”
If you don’t feel like clicking through, here’s what Brian McLaren says, “I certainly believe in the need for saving faith, for forgiveness, for hope beyond death, for the pursuit of orthodox articulations of belief, for overcoming the damning effects of sin, for rejecting wholeheartedly the idea that we can be saved by our own efforts or through religion, and so on. I’m not attacking those beliefs.”
BTW - “Everything Must Change” is mostly just Christian book publisher hyperbole, if you ask me. Regardless, “A Whole Heckuvalot of Things Must Change”
Shalom,
Steve K.
Steve K. | Dec 4, 2007 | Reply
Steve,
That sounds all fine in the quote, but the problem is that it is so radically different from what he says elsewhere, consistently.
If McLaren had made a radical change to such a view, away from what he usually teaches, and we could say “Wow he’s reformed his teachings to be Biblical,” then we would cheer that move, and certainly would. But in reality, while he is saying things like this to appease critics, he is saying the opposite and contradicting himself in other circles.
One of the tenets of postmodernism is that contradiction is not a problem. A postmodernist, which McLaren is, can believe “A” and “not A” simultaneously. No big deal. So in reality, McLaren can say something like this, but still undermine the gospel and “orthodox articulations” in the next breath and not see a problem with it.
This is why his teachings are so dangerous, because confusion is lifted up and clarity is diminished. He can say things like this to minimize his legitimate critics, while contradicting himself too.
The issue isn’t what does he say to just shut up critics, but what does he consistently and habitually teach? When looked at in the latter, he comes up wanting when compared to Biblical teachings.
In the end, the gospel is compromised and Christ is not glorified; and that should be exposed until he changes his message completely.
I agree with you that many things within evangelical churchianity needs to change. On that we are marching in the same row. But what needs to be changed, and how is very important. How things are “done” can be altered, but the Biblical doctrines, the gospel, and the cross must remain constant.
tr
Tony Rose | Dec 4, 2007 | Reply