I merely scowled, then chuckled. Take a straight and beautiful scripture, give a couple twists and add some salt and, Presto! it's a pretzel! Half off with green kool-aid.

the pretzel metaphor has merit . . .

Doug practices his own version of what St. Peter condemned as wresting the Scriptures.

Well, Doug is a nutjob of lesser rank. This is Brian.

And here is Brian singing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7rpdBvzang&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ebrianmclaren%2Enet%2Farchives%2Fblog%2Fsome%2Dof%2Dus%2Ehtml&feature=player_embedded

Bear in mind that in accusing him of “singing”, I am twisting language into shapes it was never intended to go. I think this is one of those campfire songs intended to make young people feel even more immature.

How can Christianity ever be made attractive to cannibals unless you contextualize the teachings of Christ to show that Christians are cannibals, too? These emergence people are really on to something.

Whenever I see someone suggesting that Christianity be adapted to be more "palatable" these days, it makes me think of Bruno opining on the bread and fish: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kHk4RFAROg

Ah, Joshua, surely you aren't imnplying that Brian is to be made fun of because he believes that "This is my body" must be taken literally? That's hardly an unsubstantiated, unhistorical, or unreasonable interpretation. You can argue with it, I suppose, but mocking? However as Dissidens says I shouldn't be so certain of people so quickly, so maybe that's not what you meant.

I'm pretty sure what Dissidens is mocking is the grotesquerie of his language, and the doctrinal imprecision of a comparison that seems to imply Christ's resurrection is something in the nature of reconstitution, a heresy if you can pin it down.

I laugh but my laughter always turns to pain. Here's a guy who hangs crosses on his wall, tries to chant the Lord's prayer, is grasping for a more sacramental experience of his faith, and bumbles into casual Christological heresies. There are few more vivid pictures of the lostness characterizing today's Christianity.

And I have to say, I'm more convinced than ever that it comes down to questions of authority. What is authority? And how has authority been so badly misunderstood and abused that you have folks like Brain running to the church and away from her headlong at the same time?

And I have to say, I'm more convinced than ever that it comes down to questions of authority. What is authority? And how has authority been so badly misunderstood and abused that you have folks like Brain running to the church and away from her headlong at the same time?

Indeed. I'm trying to work through formulating Clement of Rome's doctrine of Scripture and found this sentence provocative:

Therefore let us abandon empty and futile thoughts, and let us conform to the glorious and holy rule our tradition... (1 Clement 7:2)

I think that is one of those sentences that a lot of the data is going to have to be referred back to.

I think your earlier analysis of the whole Sweatt debacle was right on. What was most upsetting to me about his "talk" was the abject humanism and pragmatism. "We need to be better leaders or we are going to lose all the kids." But certainly not because Jesus deserves better leaders. "A 2nd generation Calvinism never survives." As if survival of the movement is the determination of its truthfulness and right-ness.

And as Diss alluded to-- what has Bauder been most criticized for? Picking on Jones and Rice. Never mind whether his analysis was right or wrong, he besmirched the giants!

So what is more disturbing? That Bixby, Bauder, et al were upset at criticism of Calvin and Calvinism? Or that Lou is upset at criticism of Jones and Rice? Is the glory of the Lord completely eclipsed in this movement/idea/??? ?

Authority is indeed a key issue: for all believers.

@AR: I was reacting to the idiotic focus on purely physical, material aspects of the equation. He has reduced the Eucharist to "When you digest the flesh and blood, my flesh and blood lives through your body". It's an old version of "you are what you eat". The severity of this error is hard to overstate.

I'm constantly amazed at how many people try to interpret the Eucharist in these "you are what you eat" terms. I mean, what comes next? Should we grind up the bones of the saints and mix with our coffee, so that they too, may live in us and make us more holy? Gospel of Thomas (yes, I know, it's apocryphal, but this is common sense) v. 7 had a comment about this:

"Jesus said, "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human." "

A person cannot take this materialistic reductionist view of Eucharist without going insane and essentially promoting cannibalism.

You know better than me what is missing from this guy's explanation, but I'll mention a few things anyway: 1) When believers are gathered together, we *are* the body of Christ. What we eat, finds life in us -- the bread that is made from the seed that is sown, buried, dies, and finds life through the father -- and the wine which is transformed into wine from water of the rain and sunshine. Obviously, this isn't the full meaning of the Eucharist, but McLaren woul have to reject the idea that water could become wine, or that wine could live on as the body of Christ. By his world view, apparently we would simply become grapes if we drink wine. Furthermore, the believers gathered together *become* the body of Christ primarily by sharing in his crucifixion. McLaren also perverts and misses this meaning. By his explanation, we *become* Christ by crushing his body and eating it; not by allowing our own bodies to be living sacrifices for the sake of the kingdom.