I still wonder what the EC guys intend in these statements. As an example, McLaren states, "Does a little dose of Buddhism thrown into a belief system somehow kill off the Christian part? My Buddhist cousin, except for her unfortunate inability to embrace Jesus, is a better “Christian” (based on Jesus’ descriptions of what a Christian does) than almost every Christian I know. If we are using Matthew 26 as a guide, she’d be a sheep; and almost every Christian I know personally would be a goat." This seems to be about how to live the Christian life not about whether or not the cousin is really a Christian while not embracing Christ.
Using Gilley's approach, Christ would have also failed because of the dishonest manager story.
I think the EC guys need to be less ambiguous - especially in prepared statements/writings.
Again, I don't have a strong need to support the EC bunch but the things I have read and listened to (in context) were nothing like the stuff Gilley is coming up with. Everything Gilley has said are things that should concern us and most of what I have read from EC folks makes me nervous (in the sense of the ambiguity) but I think we need to be very careful to represent the real beliefs of those we accuse. As a Vineyard guy, perhaps I am overly sensitive to this but I have been the target of many accusations by people that simply did not understand what was being said or done.