June 10, 2007
-
McLaren: The end….
After finishing his initial exposition chapters, I expected
to skim the bulk of McLaren’s Generous
Orthodoxy, but I found his later
chapters to be provocative and insightful.I think at this point in my life, I am more interested in
reading/listening to people who think differently than I do rather than soaking
myself in works that reflect my own viewpoint. McLaren offered a surprising mix
of agreement and disagreement with my perspective on the Church and her
mission. I can’t really quantify what exactly I agree with and what I would
reject. I think his thoughts need to marinate in me for a while . . .Overall, I think McLaren is essentially on the mark with his
critique of what my friend Sam calls “churchianity.” The religion
of Christianity is not
equivalent to the Kingdom which the Triune God is hard at work creating on this
earth. Our Christian “religion”
continues to alienate folks, including many of our young people.The Church in our 21st century, Evangelical
expression has grown fat and comfortable in her neighborhood of (fading)
Modernism. Yes, yes, there have been cosmic battles between liberal and
conservative theology, vast disagreements over methodology, and a spectacular
opening salvo known as the Reformation. But
our emergent understanding of the world is now postmodern, not Modern.
We are too steeped in our own modernist context to be able to critique its
faults. Somehow McLaren mustered the necessary objectivity to stand apart from
the Church Modern to envision the Church Future. (Some of you will find the
word “objectivity” ironic in that sentence about a man who is attempting to
encourage a postmodern incarnation of the Body.)I am tired of doom and gloom preaching; me-centered theology
and mission (“Come to Jesus! He’ll make you feel better!”); narrow-minded
judgmentalism; and a refusal to work now
for the world that will exist 500 years from now (because deep-down, even the
Reformed seem to live a Left Behind theology of Christian vocation
and mission). (But was that a
narrow-minded judgment? LOL)Is McLaren right?
I don’t know. But one thing is certain: postmodern Christianity (the good kind)
will be as markedly different from what we see now as the Protestant Church
was to Medieval Catholicism.It’s going to be a wild ride….
Comments (6)
I read this book 2 or 3 years ago. At the time I could have written volumes responding to it. I won’t do that now, but what I simply must ask is this:
What do you find in McLaren that is so compelling that has not already been embraced by the liberal church in its anti-supernatural view of the person and work of Jesus, its non-inspired bible, and its non-literal understanding of the fall, the cross, the resurrection, hell (just to mention a few rather important matters)?
Another question is this:
What does McLaren say anywhere in this book or elsewhere that leads you to think he’s even a Christian. It seems to me that if someone attempts to construct something called orthodoxy (right belief) and calls himself a Christian, but fails to begin with things like our sin, God’s just wrath, penal substitution (he has elsewhere said much about this and it is far from generous or orthodox), imputed righteousness, the person and work of the Holy Spirit, or the chief end of all creation being to bring glory to God, but rather, builds a house of love and doing good on the foundation of his idea of god, I see no evidence of saving faith. In fact, what I see, in this book and other of his writings and interviews, rather than a man who loves God, (as he claims) is a man who has real hostility toward the biblical God, preferring a god or his imagination that conforms to his standards of peace, love, and politically correct “tolerance”.
Now, since the church is a spiritual entity, and the natural man cannot understand spiritual matters…
Saying that you prefer to listen to those who think differently than you may sound like a noble, generous, even humble pursuit – and there are many times when it is just that. However, in matters of faith, I’ll stick to filling my mind and my heart with the thoughts and wise counsel of those who love, trust, and revere the God who reveals Himself to sinful people in the bible and through His Son – those who don’t flinch and fashion idols when they don’t like what they find there.
But I do wonder: What makes you consider his opinions/observations worth serious consideration?
Sure, I’ll grant that he raises some valid criticisms of practices in the church, but to aim these at an audience of those already discontent or disillusioned, those who are ready to give up because they are bored or have been burned, or those who are simply ignorant or immature, and then to try to convince them that they are absolutely right and that church should be what they want it to be (how timely in our ipod – keep only what moves you and delete the duds – culture) and God should act how they want Him to act…this is not the work of a man who loves Christ’s bride.
welp, put simply –
1. I’ve read only this book by McLaren. But his statements of faith do square with the historic creeds. Is he a Reformed Presbyterian? Heck no. Is he a Christian? He claims to be one, and the Scripture tells me to treat him as one unless I see evidence of heretical belief… which I do not.
2. His weakest point is his understanding of inspiration–I agree that it is seriously lacking. But the way of salvation is through the blood of Christ, not through a particular view of inspiration.
3. Many of Mclaren’s points about social justice, environmentalism, or other issues usually labeled “liberal” are found in the OT prophets — a portion of the Bible that many evangelicals are unwilling to dig into.
But in the end –
I respect McLaren because his differing viewpoint offers a counterpoint to what I usually know and hear. Many of his criticisms are valid and supported by a Christian faith that is kinder and gentler than what I commonly hear. We need to be corrected — especially when such correction forces us back to the Word to repent and believe.
If I thought he were simply making a god in his own image, I wouldn’t have supported his book.
Obviously, you & I disagree.
Ack! I posted the uneditted version!
You can delete the one above.
This is what I’m saying:
Yes, I would agree that you and I obviously disagree. However, since at this point in your life you are more interested in reading/listening to people who think differently than you do rather than soaking yourself in your own viewpoint…shall I assume that you would be interested in continuing this discussion?
If so, maybe you would answer the questions I asked as to why you find this man’s critiques of the church so compelling. Specifically, if McLaren does not consider the bible to be the source of all we can know of what we are to believe concerning God and what duties God requires of man, why do you think he has anything valid to say about the body and bride of Christ?
Let’s make this even more foundational: If he stands in relation to the bible as mentioned, and as I already asked in the previous comment, how do we even take him for a Christian? You say you are content with his profession…ok…the Rev. John Shelby Spong calls himself a Christian too…he has many similar critiques of the church, holds many similar beliefs with McLaren, and has written much about how Christianity must change or die. How much weight do you give to his opinions? The difference between the two has much to do with the fact that JSS uses bold, clear language and McLaren is a master with slippery speech and weasel words. JSS knows his audience is already in the anti-supernatural-Jesus-as-a-great-moral-teacher camp. McLaren however wants to capture the hearts of evangelicals vulnerable to his message.
But then, let’s even say that he is a Christian – a very confused one, one who is in doubt over most of the basic doctrines of the faith – why would you find the critiques of such a theologically ignorant and immature Christian so compelling? Where do we find out who God is, what God has done, and what pleases God? The bible. Where do we find out who Christ is, what Christ has done, and who we are and are to be in Christ? The bible. Where do we find out how to be the church? The bible. So, doesn’t it stand to reason that if we were to look to a man to help us with any of these subjects, we would want to know what has informed and influenced his thinking?
But when we look at Brian McLaren’s footnotes and bibliography, what do we find? Mostly liberal theologians, Jewish scholars, secular works in archeology and linguistics, and a few medieval and current Catholic mystics. His exegesis is usually taken from commentators that do not hold to an inspired bible (including himself).
So again, I really am wondering…if you say that he is someone who thinks differently than you, and he looks outside the bible for understanding – which you’ve already acknowledged as a weakness (though not enough to discourage you from listening attentively to him) – I just don’t get what makes him compelling to you, unless…he’s not so different in his thinking from you after all?
Me again…
In thinking about this issue I was brought back to what I think is a very insightful article with broad application for numerous misunderstandings of the gospel, but particulary relevant to this discussion and why I feel so strongly that neither you nor anyone else would not look to someone like Brian McLaren for insight into what God has done through Christ and what that means for man. A man who does not understand or even acknowledge Christ and Him crucified has missed the whole of God’s purpose and plan, and is a blind guide at best. I pray that you and others will set aside some uninterrupted time to prayerfully and carefully read the following:
http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=1&var3=main
Speaking of wild rides…
I really think all of this boils down to the realization that all truth really is God’s. I don’t have to run screaming in terror from someone who doesn’t parse his theology exactly as I see it. I do study, and I’ve had enough theological training to recognize liberal vs conservative positions.
Five years on, the McLaren book still ranks among the most useful that I’ve read because the American Church needs to be challenged out of its complacency and hard-headedness. There’s nothing beautiful or Christlike about refusing to change. McLaren’s critiques are often dead-on-the-money.
So I guess I’m saying this: Desire the meat of the Word. I’ve moved past soaking in the easy truths and I need to wrestle. Men like McLaren bring home the difficult questions of modern faith and open up much-needed critique. The Christianity that I see in the pews around me often lacks any intellectual backbone, curiosity, or courage. Read McLaren. He’s good for you.