Hi Ron. Thanks for your comment. And please understand this is the intro of a 104 page examination with 441 footnotes of supporting research. This paragraph is a summation of that research, so I understand how it could come off as fear-mongering and unsupported half truth paraphrasing.

If I could push-back against your "Bell and McLaren are not biblical scholars": yes, granted, they are—or I guess, have been—pastors. But that doesn't get them off the hook for their ideas, and in fact heightens the necessity to respond given their pastoral influence at the populist level that McKnight and Wright could and will never have. Furthermore, both make theological claims and commentary on the Bible. So whether they are true-blue "biblical scholars" is irrelevant given what they are doing and who they are.

Thanks for the book recommendation! And for the record, I have a holistic view of atonement akin to Scot's which he articulated in A COMMUNITY OF ATONEMENT. Good book and appropriate method for understanding—as much as we can, because I mean, how can we really understand what happened—at the cross. Your recommendation of looking at the Kingdom through the cross is a good one for sure. And I'll tell you from my research that how one views the cross directly impacts how one views the Kingdom, so you're spot on!

Thanks again Ron.

Agreed, Craig. And my evaluation of Schleiermacher et al is not their liberalism, per se. My evaluation of them is their ideas—about sin, Jesus' person, Jesus' work, and salvation. Liberalism is a theological and historical category because there is continuity between their ideas in the same way that Evangelicalism is a theological and historical category. In my estimation what makes Schleiermacher (and his successors, including Emergents) bad isn't because he was the Founder of Liberalism or because he was liberal, but because of what he says about sin, Jesus, salvation, and Kingdom.

Yes it doesn't mean all his ideas were false or perverse. But what he says about sin, Jesus, salvation, and Kingdom are—in my estimation anyway!

Thanks for your congrats! And yes: it was great talking about some of the ideas at Baker.

I totally understand your concern with using McLaren in theological dialogue with the "heavy weights" of the preceding liberals. But because the focus of my work is interested in "doing theology for the Church," it's precisely the popular nature of McLaren and his populist influence that compelled me to use him as the voice of contemporary progressive evangelical Kingdom grammar. This is the same reason I'd give for engaging Emergent in general, given how influential it has been the past 10 years. And the fact that Bell can sell millions of books (I know, he says he's not Emergent...) behoves the Church to engage them and show the continuity between them and other aberrant forms of theology, i.e. theological liberalism.

Now, you make a great point in engaging McKnight and Wright, and Barth and Moltmann. Perhaps I should consider doing that here at n•l...especially considering Emergent has exited it's heyday!

Anyway, good thoughts and challenge. Look forward to engaging you and others in the coming weeks.

PS—Have you read Tillich at all? Or H Richard Niebuhr? Their brand of existential theology is Bell's. Almost to the 'T.' If you haven't read them, I'd think you'd find it fascinating to see the parallels between them and Bell. He even describes God in the same way: the ground of being. (uses this phrase in his companion guide and did in the original GRPress interview...)

"the problems are the same as evangelicalism (just the flip side)" YES, Nathan. It is interesting how evangelicals emphasize the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ at the expense of His life, as you said Paul definitely emphasized, and don't forget the whole book of Hebrews! And yes sin is personal AND systemic, which again Paul and others reveal.

Glad you found it helpful. Obviously I unpack my points and thesis in the next 90 pages, so it's a little unfair to post the intro without the supporting research, but I think my points still stand and I'll make some more commentary on each of these in the coming weeks.

Thanks Andrew!

Thanks, Ben. Connecting my own life-rhythm to the Church's rhythm has been fantastic for my own faith, as well. And, yes: it will be available through the Kindle and Nook stores, as well. Thanks for that catch...I'll amend my post with that info!

I agree Bill: any spiritual practice can be reduced to mechanism, even the so-called "quiet time" with which most American evangelicals are familiar! I like this thought: "The practice is a repeated reminder of whom we serve, and puts priorities in the right place, as it traditionally takes precedence over other normal activities. " Amen! And interesting insight on Muslim areas and fixed-hour prayer. Thanks for that!

I appreciate your comment, George. Please know my intention is not so much to improve upon the BCP but make it more accessible for people in the 21st century, specifically in Grand Rapids, MI. I preserve much of the content of the BCP—Psalms, prayers, Scripture reading—while modifying it slightly to tailor it for our city. As someone who obviously loves the BCP, I think you'll be pleased with the way the book turned out.

Thanks, Craig. I hope it blesses our city and provides unity through praying over Her specific needs.

I agree for sure! Which is why I gave it 5 stars on Amazon :) Even though I didn't buy everything from everyone, I can appreciate the dialogue for what it is. I was dismayed that several people gave the book 1 or 2 stars, simply because they didn't like how a particular contributor landed or argued their point (i.e. exegesis). Now if they were complaining about the voices the editors chose as representatives, then fine. But why can't we "treasure on its face" scholarly dialogue, like you said Nathan? At times it seems, evangelicals are woefully incapable of such appreciation, not to mention dialogue!