Michael Wittmer’s paper presented to the Evangelical Theological Society comparing Brian McLaren thoughts to those presented in J. Gresham Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism. He compares the following six areas

A. Living like Jesus is more important than believing in him.

B. People are basically good and free from original sin.

C. Objection to penal substitution: Why does God demand the sacrifice of his Son to satisfy his wrath?

D. Unite Christians and non-Christians and emphasize our common journey with God.

E. Inclusivism: extends salvation to include those who have not believed in Christ.

F. Focus on this life rather than the afterlife.

Great post from Mike Wittmer, author of one of my favorite books Heaven is a Place on Earth, on the danger of challenging the assumption that all humans are sinful.

This light view of sin—and the soteriological inclusivism which rises from it—may also contribute to the deep epistemological humility so prevalent among postmodern innovators. The Bible contains numerous passages which warn of a coming judgment, everlasting punishment in hell, and the need to repent and believe in Jesus to escape God’s wrath. I sometimes wonder whether the postmodern innovators’ professed humility—the Bible may not be God’s revelation, or if it is, its message isn’t clear—is a strategy to avoid what the church has traditionally believed to be the clear teaching of Scripture.

As with most of the issues raised by postmodern innovators, the solution is not to opt for one side or the other but to embrace both. We must follow Augustine, who learned from his battles with Manicheism on one extreme and Pelagianism on the other, to say that people are created but fallen, and fallen but created.   

People are created in the image of God, and so they have enormous value and, through common grace, the ability to do good to others. But people are also born rebels. We may often be good to each other, but none of us is good toward God. Adam and Eve bit the fruit in a futile bid to be like God, and their children have not stopped chasing the dream.   

Our sin is why we need saving. From this follows the church’s traditional views on evangelism, hell, other religions, homosexuality, the substitutionary atonement, and the need to believe some basic facts about sin and Jesus in order to be saved.

Many of the current controversies can be traced back to the doctrine of original sin. Once this traditional domino falls, the others will quickly follow. And make no mistake, it is being pushed.

Great interview with Tim Keller by Darryl Dash

How do we change in order to contextualize without changing the gospel?

That is the practical question in ministry. If you under-contextualize your ministry and message, no one’s life will be changed because they’ll be too confused about what you are saying. But if you over-contextualize your ministry and your message, no one’s life will be changed because you won’t really be confronting them and calling them to make deep change.

If this scares you and you say, “Well then let’s not even try it,” then you have to remember something: to over-contextualize to a new generation means you can make an idol out of their culture, but to under-contextualize to a new generation means you can make an idol out of the culture you come from. So there’s no avoiding it.

There’s far more to say about this subject, but I’ll just give you one bit of advice. The gospel is the key. If you don’t have a deep grasp on the gospel of grace, you will either over-contextualize because you want so desperately to be liked and popular, or you will under-contextualize because you are self-righteous and proud and so sure you are right about everything. The gospel makes you humble enough to listen and adapt to non-believers, but confident and happy enough that you don’t need their approval.

Great post from Dan Kimball, of Vintage Faith Church, on the ultimate goal of seeing disciples made and how it may be attractional, and not missional, churches doing it.

There are so many who don’t understand the joy of Kingdom living here on earth and the future joy of eternal life. This joy motivates me missionally, but I also cannot forget the horrors of hell. This creates a sense of urgency in me that pushes me past missional theory to see what God is actually doing in churches—large and small, attractional and missional. Where are disciples actually being grown? What is actually working? I hope there are examples of fruitful missional churches that I haven’t encountered yet.

I hope my perception based on my interaction with the missional movement is wrong. But for now, I would rather be part of a Christ-centered megachurch full of programs where people are coming to know Jesus as Savior, than part of a church of any size where they are not.