Recently while on the road I stopped into a used book store and found this little gem. It is a book by J.C. Ryle about what five English reformers had to face in standing up for the truth in the 16th century. I just thought it was interesting what these brave souls were willing to go through for the sake of the truth when today many that would identify themselves as part of the so-called Emerging church are basically saying was a waste of time and blood.
Here is a sample from the book:
"After a foolish and deplorable effort to obtain the crown for Lady Jane Grey, Edward was succeeded by his eldest sister Mary, daughter of Henry the VIII....best known in English history by the ill omened name of 'Bloody Mary'. Mary had been brought up from her infancy as a rigid adherent to the Romish Church....She began at once to pull down her brother's work in every possible way, and to restore the Popery in it's worst and most offensive forms....The mass was restored; the English service was taken away, the works of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Tyndale, Bucer, Latimer, Hooper, and Cranmer were proscribed....The foreign Protestants resident in England were banished...It is a broad fact that during the last four years of Queen Mary's reign no less than 288 persons were burnt at the stake for their adhesion to the Protestant faith."
Reminders of the reformation and what the reformers had to endure surround us here in Scotland. I have seen with my own eyes the dungeons John Knox and other protestants were thrown into because they dared to search the scriptures and preach what the bible actually said instead of being spoon fed the heretical controlling doctrines of the Catholic Church. I can't help but wonder how hard it must have been to do what they did. Think about that in light of some of Brian McLaren's words today; "[M]ysticism [contemplative prayer] provides some hope for common ground between Christianity and Islam. Both religions have within their histories examples of ecstatic union with God, which seem at odds with their own spiritual traditions but have much in common with each other." This from an interview he did recently, "[T]his is one of the huge problems with the traditional understanding of hell, because if the Cross is in line with Jesus' teaching, then I won't say the only and I certainly won't say ... or even the primary or a primary meaning of the Cross ... is that the Kingdom of God doesn't come like the kingdoms of this world by inflicting violence and coercing people. But that the kingdom of God comes thru suffering and willing voluntary sacrifice right? But in an ironic way the doctrine of hell basically says no, that's not really true. At the end God get's his way thru coercion and violence and intimidation and uh domination just like every other kingdom does. The Cross isn't the center then, the Cross is almost a distraction and false advertising for God."
Brian McLaren has also recently been quoted as saying the 'Left Behind' books were more dangerous in what they said than the 'Da Vinci Code'. I don't think all Christians have to agree on the end times view put forth in the 'Left Behind' series but to say they are more dangerous than the DaVinci Code is rediculous.
There is much more to be said about this but I would encourage you to think first about what Christ did for you on the Cross (which was not an accident as some Emergents will tell you) and also think about what the reformers went through as well back in the 16th century. Are we willing to suffer as they did or come up with some nice explanation that gets us off the hook. When I listen to people like Brian McLaren, it sounds to me like he thinks the reformation wasn't necessary and the blood of the reformers was spilt in vain.
