Monday, January 26, 2009

Really famous authors that I avoid

I don't read these guys, and neither should you.  If you do, I hope it's purely to study their wrong-headed theologies to combat it with the truth of scripture.
  • Rob Bell
  • Brian McLaren
  • Doug Padgitt
  • Donald Miller
  • Tony Jones
  • Steve Chalke
  • Tony Campolo
Anyone think I missed someone?  Who should I add to the list?

10 comments:

Pizza Man said...

Piper, White, Driscoll, MacArthur, Packer. :)

bossmanham said...

Haha.

ServantOfThe_MostHigh said...

Perhaps you should give reasons why those authors should not be read. There is one I read and quite enjoy, and have yet to see these supposed issues. Examples are your friend, even Jesus used them...

bossmanham said...

I'm glad you asked for them. A big
goal I have in blogging is to spark discussion. So I'm glad you're asking.

Rob Bell - Questions authority of scripture, necessity of virgin birth, would not speak of exclusivity of Christ at the Seeds of Compassion conference, etc.

Brian McLaren - seems to embrace universalism, a liberal political agenda, squishy on the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, puts green agenda and this world ahead of preaching Christ, typical emergent stuff

Doug Padgitt - denies that hell exists, denies homosexuality is incompatible with Christianity, doesn't show any signs of being orthodox at all

Donald Miller - seems to think hanging with pot heads is an important task, and they're somehow morally exceptional or something. "I have never experienced a group of people who loved each other more than my hippies in the woods. All of them are tucked so neatly into my memory now, and I recall our evenings at camp or in the meadow or in the caves in my mind like a favorite film. I pull them out when I need to be reminded about goodness, about purity and kindness"---Puh-lease! more here : http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/08/nathan/green_like_envy.htm

Tony Jones - accepts homosexual lifestyle, doesn't show any signs of being orthodox at all, problem with exclusivity of Christ

Steve Chalke - called substitutionary atonement "cosmic child abuse"

Tony Campolo - Social gospel baloney, etc

ServantOfThe_MostHigh said...

It seems to me that your criticism of Miller is misplaced. You put "seems to think," rather than actually thinks. Also, that article is an example of very poor writing. He jumps to very strange conclusion of what Miller is saying and makes claims that Miller does not make. It seems more that he "read" Blue Like Jazz, saw some word choices he didn't like, and blasted it.

I'm currently reading Blue Like Jazz and I don't find any of this in his book. I think if I were to spend my time bashing someone, I would at least not make gross leaps in logic like your article.

It is sad that the article writers choose to lump Miller in with a culture that he does not actually embody, just that they feel like he does. They only pick and choose what they feel will make their point best, rather than expanding on the whole point that Miller makes. For instance, Miller's point on the hippies is not that the hippies are better, just that they live with a more open love, which really reflects in the article with how they pick out a few words and bash them, rather than understanding.

Knowledge with no understanding is dangerous and not worth it in the end. Even the devil has knowledge of God, but no understanding, and thus is in damnation. To have a knowledge of one's words is not the same as understanding them, and I think the gross misunderstanding and personal attacks this article uses are sicking for any one who lives in Christ. Even Jesus warned about when we hear yet do not understand...

bossmanham said...

I don't know what me putting "seems to think" has to do with anything. I don't think people should jump to conclusions, but Miller glorifying that type of lifestyle, no matter what else he was trying to say, is a little ridiculous. He should have been telling these guys about Jesus instead of watching them be retarded. By going into the whole thing, it seems to me that Donald is trying to say that because these hippies were "loving" each other, they are better than others. I'm sorry, indulging n a drug habit and encouraging others to do it with you is not loving, except to the world.

And Jesus was talking about people not understanding the gospel or who He is. He's not talking about not understanding some contemporary Christian writer. We can't simply rip scripture out of context to prove a point.

bossmanham said...

And speaking of not understanding; Miller, if that is what his gospel presentation is in the book, certainly does not understand what the gospel is. He doesn't let the guy know he's a sinner, he makes it look like the guy saves himself. That is not what is presented in the Bible. The article writer is right, that is Pelagian.

ServantOfThe_MostHigh said...

Yet that's not what his representation is in the book. The "seems to think" comment is me saying that it's not good to say things when you don't know the truth of the matter, or don't know the whole story.

I'm well aware Jesus meant people not understanding the Gospel, but it is still and odd stance for us to not actually understand something, then say it is bad. The conclusions that you have thus drawn are in fact flawed because they are based on a flawed argument. If I had never touched Miller's book prior to reading that article, due to the leaps in logic and the clear misrepresentation of Miller's point, I would have picked up the book as soon as possible to see what this Miller guy is all about.

I think it is something we can ill afford to do, explain away things we never understood, based off flawed thinking. Also, I am worried about the personal attacks peppered throughout the article, especially the suggestion that Miller is not Christian more than once. How are we living in the world and not being of it when we write like that?

ServantOfThe_MostHigh said...

Also, I disagree that Miller argues that a man saves himself. If you look at Miller's approach, he was trying to talk about Christianity outside the realm of religious terms, which is no mean feat. Have you ever listened to yourself explain the Gospel? I know I have, more than once, and I have listened to others so many times. We have our "religious speak" and that's how we talk to people. It's somehow embedded in our thought processes and we can seem to break away from it. How are we to reach the broken hearted when we can't even come down to speaking plainly?

As someone who thinks about words all day, I find it odd how we act like we need to talk in a way that's so high and mighty sounding, rather than just being simple, real, and at the level we need to be. I had a discussion with a friend once who told me she took a long time to come to Christ because no Christian would ever be real with her. That's sad. We've made everything so formulaic that we don't seem real any more, and then we fight amongst ourselves. We look more like the world than anything, then we're shocked when the people trapped in this world what nothing to do with us. I think Miller does a good job, and I will read what he writes. If that makes me less of a Christian in your eyes, that's your choice. Fortunately I only have to answer to my Savior.

The Seeking Disciple said...

I would add Michael Horton (too Calvinist), Richard Foster, Thomas Merton, and now Phillip Yancey.