Discerning Readers Want to Know
Martin Luther & John Calvin & CS Lewis. I would gladly read anything the three men wrote. However, Martin Luther didn't think James belonged in the canon of Scripture and was known pretty much as a Jew hater, and John Calvin was fine with a heretic being burned at the stake, while CS Lewis is a universalist (in that he believes some will go to heaven who never heard of Christ as long as they were genuine. It seems you find a lot of crazy folk discounting all that these men contributed to the Kingdom because of these areas, some of which should not be glanced over.
So, flash forward to our day. In the emergent camp you have men like Rob Bell, Donald Miller, Erwin McManus, and Brian McLaren putting out many books. Just to be fair, I have never read an entire book of any one of these men. And at this point, I don't intend to. However, I wonder, is there somewhat of a double standard going on with folk like me? Seriously, I'm just wondering, because this would be an indictment on myself. Some of these listed authors truly have nothing worthwhile to say, while maybe one or two have some decent insight that we could maybe learn from, but you would have to spill out 95% of the chaff to get to the wheat of it. If I embrace Martin Luther's principles except for his heavy dislike of Jews, transubstantiation, and interesting views on what belongs in the canon of Scripture, then I will grow tremendously & fall more deeply in love with God, without a doubt. If I decide because of the former list of concerns to never read him, then I would miss out on large spoonfuls of spiritual heapings of holy help (sorry, it just came out). Same thing with Calvin & Lewis.
When anyone in my life ever tells me their reading books by the emergent authors listed above, I tend to just close my ears to the rest of the conversation & begin silently praying for their salvation. Am I being a hypocrite? Could it be possible they are not throwing the baby out with the bath water and that they are sifting through the material and judging it according to the Word, taking the fruitful sentences and burning the misleading/heretical ones? Perhaps I should ask them, & not my own blog.
I remember once someone gave me a Henri Nouwen & Thomas Merton book. I don't put these men in as dangerous a category as emergents, but that said, they do have their issues in their own right. The first book I read by Nouwen was incredible, I truly loved it. Merton was okay, with plenty of concerns though. The second book by Nouwen, I had to throw away, it was so upsetting. I haven't even entertained him or Merton since.
In a whole other category would be Watchman Nee. Not Witness Lee, Watchman Nee. His treatments on some topics have been amazingly insightful. His insight into Romans, the Holy Spirit, & other areas is simply tremedous. However, he would get kicked out of all the camps I run in label wise since he believes in a second baptism and other issues like that which I disagree on. And for whatever reason that I couldn't do with Merton & Nouwen, I can continue to read Nee and take all the good & leave all the bad, no problem - the same as I do with Calvin, Luther, & Lewis. For some of my friends who may be reading this, don't freak out - my main authors are Puritans, pastors like Piper, Mahaney, Sproul, and others like Carson, MacArthur, & Schreiner. And yet, there's other controversial ones in a different way such as Douglas Wilson, Peter Leithart whom I enjoy.
So my reason for writing, my question is, do we too often throw the baby out with the bathwater & dismiss those writers who don't talk & look like us out too quickly, or is it dangerous to read men with overt shortcomings (I know all have flaws). My personal opinion is that we should have a steady diet of those who are consistently and Biblically solid. When we read those who we know are not, we should be discerning according to Scripture, & sometimes I think it is best & safe to not even waste your time with some (like some on the emergent list).
So, flash forward to our day. In the emergent camp you have men like Rob Bell, Donald Miller, Erwin McManus, and Brian McLaren putting out many books. Just to be fair, I have never read an entire book of any one of these men. And at this point, I don't intend to. However, I wonder, is there somewhat of a double standard going on with folk like me? Seriously, I'm just wondering, because this would be an indictment on myself. Some of these listed authors truly have nothing worthwhile to say, while maybe one or two have some decent insight that we could maybe learn from, but you would have to spill out 95% of the chaff to get to the wheat of it. If I embrace Martin Luther's principles except for his heavy dislike of Jews, transubstantiation, and interesting views on what belongs in the canon of Scripture, then I will grow tremendously & fall more deeply in love with God, without a doubt. If I decide because of the former list of concerns to never read him, then I would miss out on large spoonfuls of spiritual heapings of holy help (sorry, it just came out). Same thing with Calvin & Lewis.
When anyone in my life ever tells me their reading books by the emergent authors listed above, I tend to just close my ears to the rest of the conversation & begin silently praying for their salvation. Am I being a hypocrite? Could it be possible they are not throwing the baby out with the bath water and that they are sifting through the material and judging it according to the Word, taking the fruitful sentences and burning the misleading/heretical ones? Perhaps I should ask them, & not my own blog.
I remember once someone gave me a Henri Nouwen & Thomas Merton book. I don't put these men in as dangerous a category as emergents, but that said, they do have their issues in their own right. The first book I read by Nouwen was incredible, I truly loved it. Merton was okay, with plenty of concerns though. The second book by Nouwen, I had to throw away, it was so upsetting. I haven't even entertained him or Merton since.
In a whole other category would be Watchman Nee. Not Witness Lee, Watchman Nee. His treatments on some topics have been amazingly insightful. His insight into Romans, the Holy Spirit, & other areas is simply tremedous. However, he would get kicked out of all the camps I run in label wise since he believes in a second baptism and other issues like that which I disagree on. And for whatever reason that I couldn't do with Merton & Nouwen, I can continue to read Nee and take all the good & leave all the bad, no problem - the same as I do with Calvin, Luther, & Lewis. For some of my friends who may be reading this, don't freak out - my main authors are Puritans, pastors like Piper, Mahaney, Sproul, and others like Carson, MacArthur, & Schreiner. And yet, there's other controversial ones in a different way such as Douglas Wilson, Peter Leithart whom I enjoy.
So my reason for writing, my question is, do we too often throw the baby out with the bathwater & dismiss those writers who don't talk & look like us out too quickly, or is it dangerous to read men with overt shortcomings (I know all have flaws). My personal opinion is that we should have a steady diet of those who are consistently and Biblically solid. When we read those who we know are not, we should be discerning according to Scripture, & sometimes I think it is best & safe to not even waste your time with some (like some on the emergent list).
