Heartsick's McLaren Quotes
For ease of reading and as a courtesy to Heartsick, I'm putting all the comments into one post.
PART ONE:
I'm seeing the handwriting on the wall; if I don't get a comment made soon, it may not happen for a while, or ever. So, I'm going with what I've got to give at this point, brothers and sisters.
I have been charged with making accusations that have no merit. If my concerns aimed at the emergent church in the aforementioned areas of scriptural inerrancy and authority, the reality of a literal hell, and the meaning and exclusivity of Jesus Christ's atonement for sin have no merit, then I am in good company with some very respected leaders, who have spoken to and written way more than I ever could on the subject. At the risk of providing an incomplete defense of my remarks, I will include the following for your consideration.
I believe Brian McLaren to be an inclusivist, and I wouldn't be surprised if a few years down the line he ventured into universalism. I do believe that's where the majority of the professing church is headed in the future, based upon my study of biblical prophecy.
If McLaren is not an inclusivist, then he has been very irresponsible in his writing and his posting on the web.
First, the following excerpt from one of his books was posted on beliefnet...
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/173/
story_17371_1.html
I find this an interesting and inventive way for someone to present their view, in narrative form, burying his views in the dialogue and thoughts of his characters. Still, to me whether this work actually represents his views or not, I find it irresponsible and confusing, especially to the young people who will be reading it.
There are also the following quotes from his books (just a drop in the bucket)....
"We could talk about the inclusive tribe of God, for example: in a world of increasing tribalism, continually threatened by intertribal warfare and genocide, God is creating a barrier-breaking tribe that welcomes, appreciates, and links all tribes. This inclusive tribe isn’t an in-group that makes other tribes into out-groups; rather it’s a “come on in” group that seeks to help all tribes maintain their unique identity and heritage while being invited into a tribe of tribes who live together in mutual respect, harmony, and love -- because God is the universal tribal chief who created and loves all tribes.”
(Brian McLaren ,The Secret Message of Jesus [W Publishing Group, 2006], pp. 147-8)
PART TWO:
More McLaren quotes to consider....
"Tony [Campolo] and I might disagree on the details, but I think we are both trying to find an alternative to both traditional Universalism and the narrow, exclusivist understanding of hell [that unless you explicitly accept and follow Jesus, you are excluded from eternal life with God and destined for hell]." 5/08/06 “Out of Ur” interview
"My approach is a little different. Although in many ways I find myself closer to the view of God held by some universalists than I do the view held by some exclusivists, in the end I’d rather turn our attention from the questions WE think are important to the question JESUS thinks is most important...We obsess on “who’s in” and “who’s out.” Jesus, however, seems to be asking the question, “How can the kingdom of God more fully come on earth as it is in heaven, and how should disciples of the kingdom live to enter and welcome the kingdom?” 5/08/06 “Out of Ur” interview
"Most people aren’t willing to reopen these issues with an open mind, and those who do find the process painful and socially dangerous in many of our churches. In the end, I suppose I am truly an evangelical Protestant in the sense that I believe we must go back and search the Scriptures and look at them afresh and see if there isn’t something better than what we have been taught. Ironically, we could stand before God and have to answer for our judgmentalism and heartless attitudes that were, to a significant degree, consequences of a popular and longstanding misreading of the Scriptures on this subject of hell." Out of Ur interview 5/06 McLaren
“This is how I feel when I’m offered a choice between the roads of exclusivism (only confessing Christians go to heaven), universalism (everyone goes to heaven), and inclusivism (Christians go to heaven, plus at least some others). Each road takes you somewhere, to a place with some advantages and disadvantages, but none of them is the road of my missional calling: blessed in this life to be a blessing to everyone on earth.” McLaren ‘A Generous Orthodoxy”
“Universalism is not as bankrupt of biblical support as some suggest,” McLaren, “the Last Word...” p.103
“It bothers me to use exclusive and Jesus in the same sentence. Everything about Jesus’ life and message seemed to be about inclusion, not exclusion,” McLaren, The Last Word, p. 35
I think it bothers McLaren to use any definitive word to communicate his beliefs...period. And you can be sure that he knows what it is he believes. My fear is that he is "coming on slowly," asking some questions, opening up the dialogue, but that in reality he is leading us somewhere very specific.
I believe McLaren to be an inclusivist, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if he were to end up in the universalist camp in a few years (my own conjecture of course). However, it won't be called "universalism" by then. We'll have some new, very spiritual, very broad, and trendy word to call it by then.
I can't help but think of this verse...
“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” (2 Corinthians 11:3)
PART 3:
On truth, scripture, and the gospel...
McLaren seems to believe that the church has not understood the real message of Jesus, that early on the church “twisted” what Jesus (and Paul) taught into a gospel of “justification by grace through faith, the free gift of salvation, Christ being a substitutionary sacrifice for…sin” (p. 91). That is not the gospel at all according to McLaren, the gospel is that “the kingdom of God is at hand” (p. 92). (“The Secret Message of Jesus”)
“I don’t think we’ve got the gospel right yet. What does it mean to be saved?... None of us have arrived at orthodoxy.” Brian McLaren, Christianity Today, p.40
McLaren said these are words (inerrant, infallible, or authoritative) related to a philosophical belief system that he used to hold. But he no longer believes the “Bible is absolutely equivalent to the phrase ‘the Word of God’ as used in the Bible. Although I do find the term inerrancy useful… I would prefer to use the term inherency to describe my view of Scripture.” “The Last Word” p. 111 McLaren
“The Bible requires human interpretation, which was [is] a problem…. How do “I” know the Bible is always right? And if “I” am sophisticated enough to realize that I know nothing of the Bible without my own involvement via interpretation….What good is it, liberals would ask conservatives, to have an inerrant Bible if you have no inerrant interpretations?…” p.133-34 “A Generous Orthodoxy” McLaren
Consider for a minute what it would mean to get the glory of God finally and fully right in your thinking or to get a fully formed opinion of God’s goodness or holiness. Then I think you’ll feel the irony: all these years of pursuing orthodoxy ended up like this – in front of all this glory understanding nothing ”(emphasis his) McLaren, Generous Orthodoxy, p.294
More quotes to consider...
“Ask me if Christianity (my version of it, yours, the Pope’s, whoever’s) is orthodox, meaning true, and here’s my honest answer: a little, but not yet. Assuming by Christianity you mean the Christian understanding of the world and God, Christian opinions on soul, text, and culture I’d have to say that we probably have a couple of things right, but a lot of things wrong, and even more spreads before us unseen and unimagined. But at least our eyes are open! To be a Christian in a generously orthodox way is not to claim to have the truth captured, stuffed, and mounted on the wall.”
––Brian McLaren , A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 293
“Perhaps our ‘inward-turned, individual-salvation-oriented, un-adapted Christianity’ is a colossal and tragic misunderstanding, and perhaps we need to listen again for the true song of salvation, which is ‘good news to all creation.’ So perhaps it’s best to suspend what, if anything, you ‘know’ about what it means to call Jesus ‘Savior’ and to give the matter of salvation some fresh attention. Let’s start simply. In the Bible, save means ‘rescue’ or ‘heal’. It emphatically does not mean ‘save from hell’ or ‘give eternal life after death,’ as many preachers seem to imply in sermon after sermon. Rather its meaning varies from passage to passage, but in general, in any context, save means ‘get out of trouble.’ The trouble could be sickness, war, political intrigue, oppression, poverty, imprisonment, or any kind of danger or evil.”
––Brian McLaren , A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 93
“How do you know if something is true?...First, you engage in spiritual practices like prayer, Bible reading, forgiveness, and service. Then you see what happens; you remain open to experience. Finally, you report your experience to others in the field of spirituality for their discernment, to see if they confirm your findings or not.”
––Brian McLaren , A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 199
McLaren seems to discount the Holy Spirit's role through history of revealing Christ to man and revealing His Word to us with clarity. I believe that the true Body of Christ has known and will continue to know the very clear and pure Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The last quote shows the way in which McLaren goes about discerning truth. What happened to not needing anyone to teach us because we have the Spirit to do that for us?
Just a couple of quotes concerning hell...
“Tony [Campolo] and I might disagree on the details, but I think we are both trying to find an alternative to both traditional Universalism and the narrow, exclusivist understanding of hell [that unless you explicitly accept and follow Jesus, you are excluded from eternal life with God and destined for hell].”
--Brian McLaren ’s Inferno 2, Out of Ur, May 2006
“..we should consider the possibility that many, and perhaps even all of Jesus’ hell-fire or end-of-the-universe statements refer not to postmortem judgment but to the very historic consequences of rejecting his kingdom message of reconciliation and peacemaking.”
--Brian McLaren ’s Inferno 3, Out of Ur, May 2006
“The language of hell, in my view, like the language of biblical prophecy in general, is not intended to provide literal or detailed fortune-telling or prognostication about the hereafter, nor is it intended to satisfy intellectual curiosity, but rather it is intended to motivate us in the here and now to realize our ultimate accountability to a God of mercy and justice and in that light to rethink everything and to seek first the kingdom and justice of God.”
––Brian McLaren , The Last Word and the Word After That, pgs.188-189
Another important topic facing the church is homosexuality. McLaren has once again been as clear as mud on this issue. I understand the need for sensitivity, but that shouldn't take the place of the need for clear teaching on the subject within the church. Here are some of his quotes on that....
"I hesitate in answering “the homosexual question” not because I’m a cowardly flip-flopper who wants to tickle ears, but because I am a pastor, and pastors have learned from Jesus that there is more to answering a question than being right or even honest: we must also be . . . pastoral. That means understanding the question beneath the question, the need or fear or hope or assumption that motivates the question.”
--Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question, Out of Ur, Jan. 2006
“Frankly, many of us don’t know what we should think about homosexuality. We’ve heard all sides but no position has yet won our confidence so that we can say “it seems good to the Holy Spirit and us.”
--Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question, Out of Ur, Jan. 2006
Brian McLaren’s view on how we can “solve” the homosexuality issue within Christianity: No one is allowed to talk about it unless they have enough points:
“10 if you have considered and studied the relevant biblical passages
10 if you have actually read the six passages about homosexuality in the bible
20 if you have read other passages that might affect the way you read those six passages
5 if you have read one or more books that reinforce the position you already hold
25 if you have read one or more books arguing the opposite position
10 if you have spent three hours reading websites showing a variety of views
50 for every friend you have who’s been through an ex-gay ministry
50 for every friend who’s been through an ex-gay ministry that didn’t work
50 for every friend who’s gay and in a long-term committed relationship
50 for every friend who’s gay and not in a committed relationship
50 for every parent you’ve listened to whose child is gay
When you have 3,000 points, you can speak on the issue.”
--Brian McLaren , Generous Orthodoxy Conference: The Gay Forum, 2005
Wow, perhaps McLaren should run for office. Kidding.
The Bible is clear, and we should be clear...gentle, loving, respectful, but clear.
Finally, I offer these snippets from McLaren. The first are some notes from slides of a PowerPoint presentation he gave at an emergent conference. They are available for download on the net. He is "defining", sort of, the emergent church....
“We embrace historic spiritual practices such as prayer, meditation, contemplation, study, solitude, silence.”
“We are committed to honor and serve the church in all its forms - Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Pentecostal.
“What if the dominant method [of]knowing truth is being replaced by a new methodology ...
“We name the disease: Excessive confidence ... Universal systems ... Totalizing metanarratives ... Absolutism”
“Accept the coexistence of different faiths ... willingly, not begrudgingly. Christian mission must be dialogical.”
“The “old, old story” may not have been the “true, true story,” and so we must continually rediscover the gospel.” (powerpoint slides from a recent emergent conference)
I also think it is important to look at who a person is promoting or endorsing. I'm not talking "guilt by association" but rather actual endorsements. One of the things that makes me think McLaren may eventually go "universalist" is because of his dust-jacket endorsement of Alan Jones' "Reimagining Christianity".
McLaren says this about Jones' book, “... Alan Jones is a pioneer in reimagining a Christian faith that emerges from authentic spirituality. His work stimulates and encourages me deeply .”
Finally, I offer these snippets from McLaren. The first are some notes from slides of a PowerPoint presentation he gave at an emergent conference. They are available for download on the net. He is "defining", sort of, the emergent church....
“We embrace historic spiritual practices such as prayer, meditation, contemplation, study, solitude, silence.”
“We are committed to honor and serve the church in all its forms - Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Pentecostal.
“What if the dominant method [of]knowing truth is being replaced by a new methodology ...
“We name the disease: Excessive confidence ... Universal systems ... Totalizing metanarratives ... Absolutism”
“Accept the coexistence of different faiths ... willingly, not begrudgingly. Christian mission must be dialogical.”
“The “old, old story” may not have been the “true, true story,” and so we must continually rediscover the gospel.” (powerpoint slides from a recent emergent conference)
I also think it is important to look at who a person is promoting or endorsing. I'm not talking "guilt by association" but rather actual endorsements. One of the things that makes me think McLaren may eventually go "universalist" is because of his dust-jacket endorsement of Alan Jones' "Reimagining Christianity".
McLaren says this about Jones' book, “... Alan Jones is a pioneer in reimagining a Christian faith that emerges from authentic spirituality. His work stimulates and encourages me deeply .”
Jones has this to say in his book....
“The Church’s fixation on the death of Jesus as the universal saving act must end, and the place of the cross must be reimagined in Christian faith . Why? Because of the cult of suffering and the vindictive God behind it.” (Alan Jones, Reimagining Christianity p. 132)
“The other thread of just criticism addresses the suggestion implicit in the cross that Jesus’ sacrifice was to appease an angry god. Penal substitution [the Cross] was the name of this vile doctrine .” (p. 168)
One last quote from Jones....
“The image of the child Jesus sitting on the Buddha’s lap appeals to me and captures the spirit of this book. It is an image of the Kingdom. “The Kingdom” is a sort of shorthand signifying an inclusive community of faith, love and justice.” (Alan Jones, Reimagining Christianity p. 12) Brian McLaren endorses this book on the back cover! Is he ignorant of its content or in agreement????
Jones is part of the "Living Spiritual Teachers Project" along with a host of other religious leaders like New Ager Marriane Williamson, a buddhist monk, and many others. Read out their organization on the web. They are very universalistic, and I believe they are a mini version of what we'll eventually see in this world when all religions pull together and the great apostasy takes place.
My fear is that all of this is leading that direction, slowly, subtly, but surely.
I hope I have shown due diligence in providing the proof you asked for. It isn't an easy task, and I recognize we won't all come to the same conclusions. If you still believe that my accusations have "no merit", then I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
Blessings to you all in Christ,
"heartsick"
posted by Brian at 9:18 AM
16 Comments:
Thanks for some primary source information.
Heartsick said, "I believe Brian McLaren to be an inclusivist, and I wouldn't be surprised if a few years down the line he ventured into universalism. I do believe that's where the majority of the professing church is headed in the future, based upon my study of biblical prophecy."
I'm not a dispensationalist, so I'm not sure how to comment on this, though it does make me think that much of your view is filtered through some type of dispensational theology, which began in the 1800's, not with Jesus.
Heartsick said, "I find this an interesting and inventive way for someone to present their view, in narrative form, burying his views in the dialogue and thoughts of his characters. Still, to me whether this work actually represents his views or not, I find it irresponsible and confusing, especially to the young people who will be reading it."
Heartsick is bothered that McLaren has offered his ideas in a novel. This makes me think that Heartsick's views are being filtered through a modern, enlightened lens which does not appreciate the power of story to state truth clearly. This is also seen in not appreciating mysticism in the church, as well as several comments separating Catholics and Orthodox from acceptable Christianity. The Bible is not a "modern" book, nor is it postmodern, so we must be careful of the lens we use, and make no mistake we use a lens.
Heartsick quoted McLaren, ""Most people aren’t willing to reopen these issues with an open mind, and those who do find the process painful and socially dangerous in many of our churches. In the end, I suppose I am truly an evangelical Protestant in the sense that I believe we must go back and search the Scriptures and look at them afresh and see if there isn’t something better than what we have been taught. Ironically, we could stand before God and have to answer for our judgmentalism and heartless attitudes that were, to a significant degree, consequences of a popular and longstanding misreading of the Scriptures on this subject of hell." Out of Ur interview 5/06 McLaren
What's wrong with looking at Scripture to see if Modernism has blurred the Gospel over the last few hundred years? I think we as teachers must ask this question.
Heartsick commented, "I think it bothers McLaren to use any definitive word to communicate his beliefs...period. And you can be sure that he knows what it is he believes. My fear is that he is "coming on slowly," asking some questions, opening up the dialogue, but that in reality he is leading us somewhere very specific."
That is a bit paranoid. But it's not paranoia if you're right. But I don't think you're right. McLaren does not have a secret agenda.
Heartsick commented, "McLaren seems to discount the Holy Spirit's role through history of revealing Christ to man and revealing His Word to us with clarity. I believe that the true Body of Christ has known and will continue to know the very clear and pure Gospel of Jesus Christ."
The key here is "the true Body of Christ," which is what? Heartsick has said he/she is not an armenian nor a calvinist. There are hints of disliking Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I'm assuming the true Body of Christ is some form of fundamentalist, dispensational belief system. If so , I would disagree. I would think that the Holy Spirit was working in the early Catholic church, though I think it got a bit corrupted. I think it was working in the early Protestant/Lutheran church, but it got a bit corrupted. And I would say the Holy Spirit is working through the Emergent church, though there are some signs of corruption. Bill talked about sometimes we need to step back. So what is the uncorrupted Gospel? I defined it as best I can (really short version) in a previous post. Is mine uncorrupted? I'd be careful not to say that because I'm sure no one thinks there gospel is corrupted. My Gospel should be questioned.
Heartsick ends with some McLaren quotes:
“We embrace historic spiritual practices such as prayer, meditation, contemplation, study, solitude, silence.”
“We are committed to honor and serve the church in all its forms - Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Pentecostal.
“What if the dominant method [of]knowing truth is being replaced by a new methodology ...
“We name the disease: Excessive confidence ... Universal systems ... Totalizing metanarratives ... Absolutism”
“Accept the coexistence of different faiths ... willingly, not begrudgingly. Christian mission must be dialogical.”
I'm not sure what is wrong with these thoughts, though they jump out at Heartsick as very dangerous.
I don't think you've proved your accusations, but thank you for your challenge. It is healthy for us to examine our thoughts. My hope is to move on to some other issues than the integrity of Brian McLaren.
(Since Brian reposted Heartsick's McLaren quotes I guess I'll have to repost my earlier response here too so it can continue to be a part of the conversation... Also, btw, in the rest of this post, when I refer to "Brian", I mean McLaren, not Brian Miller. McLaren is a personal acquaintance/friend of mine, and besides, it feels more humanizing to refer to someone by their first name - harder to tear them to shreds that way.)
Heartsick,
Those are all great quotes, thanks for sharing them and especially for putting so much time into collecting them. Personally I agree with nearly all of them.
A few points:
1) Of course Brian is an inclusivist... as am I, along with John Wesley, C.S. Lewis, and Billy Graham, among many other intelligent and biblical Christians. But what's so awful about inclusivism? Do you really want to claim that babies, young children, and people who die without ever hearing about Christ are simply damned to Hell because of circumstances beyond their control?
Inclusivism (the belief that salvation through Jesus can sometimes be applied to people without their necessarily having explicitly become "Christians") is not opposed to the exclusivity of Christ as the only way to God. It is simply opposed to the idea that the grace which comes through Christ is exclusively reserved only to those who have had a chance to hear and respond to the gospel.
I like how the eminent missionary and missiologist, Lesslie Newbigin, described this kind of inclusivism:
"The position which I have outlined is exclusivist in the sense that it affirms the unique truth of the revelation in Jesus Christ, but it is not exclusivist in the sense of denying the possibility of the salvation of the non-Christian. It is inclusivist in the sense that it refuses to limit the saving grace of God to the members of the Christian Church, but it rejects the inclusivism which regards the non-Christian religions as vehicles of salvation. It is pluralist in the sense of acknowledging the gracious work of God in the lives of all human beings, but it rejects a pluralism which denies the uniqueness and decisiveness of what God has done in Jesus Christ."
2) You said:
"McLaren seems to believe that the church has not understood the real message of Jesus, that early on the church “twisted” what Jesus (and Paul) taught into a gospel of “justification by grace through faith, the free gift of salvation, Christ being a substitutionary sacrifice for…sin” (p. 91). That is not the gospel at all according to McLaren, the gospel is that “the kingdom of God is at hand”."
Let me ask you a question: which of those two versions of the gospel do you most often find Jesus preaching? (cf. Matt 4:17, Mark 1:15, Luke 4:18-19, 4:43, 8:1, 9:2, 9:11, 10:9-11)
3) You also said:
"McLaren said these are words (inerrant, infallible, or authoritative) related to a philosophical belief system that he used to hold. But he no longer believes the “Bible is absolutely equivalent to the phrase ‘the Word of God’ as used in the Bible."
First let me ask: where do you find in the Bible the words "inerrant", "infallible", or "authoritative" in regards to itself? If the Bible doesn't use those words about itself, then why are evangelicals, who claim to hold the bible in such high regard, so quick to add additional extra-biblical concepts onto what the Bible does already say about itself?
Second, if you do believe that "the Bible is absolutely equivalent to the phrase ‘the Word of God’ as used in the Bible", then what do you do with a passage like John 1 which clearly identifies the person of Jesus Christ himself as the Word of God? Why would we want to assign to a book (no matter how divinely inspired) the status that is accorded by that book itself to a member of the divine Trinity? Isn't that idolatry?
4) You also quoted McLaren:
"How do you know if something is true?...First, you engage in spiritual practices like prayer, Bible reading, forgiveness, and service. Then you see what happens; you remain open to experience. Finally, you report your experience to others in the field of spirituality for their discernment, to see if they confirm your findings or not.”
––Brian McLaren , A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 199
and then said:
"The last quote shows the way in which McLaren goes about discerning truth. What happened to not needing anyone to teach us because we have the Spirit to do that for us?"
Be honest with us: do you really believe that? Do you really believe that you personally have no need of teachers besides the Holy Spirit? Have you never received learning and wisdom from other faithful Christians who have instructed you? Do you really, truly, see no need for the practices Brian recommends in the selection you quoted (e.g. prayer, Bible reading, forgiveness, service, experience, discernment, and good counsel from other Christians)?
Frankly, I don't believe that you do. I think you are overstating your case at this point and disagreeing with Brian simply for the sake of being disagreeable. On the other hand, if you really don't see any value in any of those things as means for discovering God's truth, then I am truly flabbergasted, and I really can't think of anything more to say to you at all.
Personally, I think Brian would likely say that all of those means he listed are the specific ways in which the Holy Spirit leads us into truth. They are the tools God uses. It doesn't have to be an either/or.
5) When it comes to homosexuality, frankly I wish Christians would stop talking about it, at least until they've publically advocated just as long and hard against poverty, exploitation, and economic injustices as they have about sexual ethics. The Bible refers to poverty and economic justice over 3000 times, and to homosexuality only 3 (maybe 4) times. Until we can get our priorities straight and really care about the things God seems to care most about, maybe we should shut up.
But again, all this is just my POV, and I'm often known to be wrong...
Paz,
-Mike
BTW Brian (Miller), I appreciate your responses as well, and especially the way you have deconstructed for us some of the assumptions that seem to be underlying Heartsick's disagreements with McLaren.
I especially wanted to comment on this:
"Heartsick is bothered that McLaren has offered his ideas in a novel. This makes me think that Heartsick's views are being filtered through a modern, enlightened lens which does not appreciate the power of story to state truth clearly. This is also seen in not appreciating mysticism in the church, as well as several comments separating Catholics and Orthodox from acceptable Christianity. The Bible is not a "modern" book, nor is it postmodern, so we must be careful of the lens we use, and make no mistake we use a lens."
Indeed, isn't the majority of the Bible itself narrative? How irresponsible and confusing of God to bury his views in the dialogue and thoughts of the biblical characters!
;)
-Mike
While I appreciate the extensive quotation from original sources I have two concerns. One, I will have to extend my lunch hour if the trend continues and two, more importantly, this blog is emergingcggc not ongoingcritiquesofMcLaren.com
Although I find it very helpful to converse with others about what I am reading, (Someone besides the Holy Spirit I might add.) some of us reached the conclusion that the Holy Spirit continues to move in the church before we even knew there was a McClaren.
I like the emphasis in McLaren on Jesus. That has been helpful to me but I am not a McLarenist.
I like Tony Campolo too. I interviewed him for my doctoral thesis and I appreciated his candor. However, I also think in his desire to make a point he has often misspoken. (The tongue is in a wet place and often slips.)
James told us not to rush to be teachers because teachers will have a greater condemnation. McLaren, Campolo and every pastor will be asked to give account of their words, I recognize that and it gives me pause.
But until that day of accountability I will practice what I call gleaning. Read, take what is helpful, leave the rest.
Thanks for reposting your comment Mike. I didn't mean to lose your comments, it just seemed more fair to Heartsick to put it all in one post.
Also, Faithful Sidekick said to me today, "There are still some things McLaren says that bother me." Me too. No one here has said, but it seems a lot of people are all or nothing. If you like McLaren, you buy everything he's selling. I don't. I thought Rob Bell's book was about half brilliant and half baked. I have Paggitt's book but listening to some of his online talks, I didn't enjoy his presentation at all.
Out of all these conversations, I've most appreciated Bill's critique of McLaren's book, which was very helpful to me.
My request is this: "Will the real emerging church please stand up!"
I'm sorry, but that's not possible. The emerging church (unlike the CGGC) is not a denomination that can set boundaries and definitive positions that everyone within it must adhere to. It is a conversation that we are all invited to participate in. McLaren can say what he likes, and anyone is free to agree or disagree as they will (again, unlike the CGGC).
That's why I find it funny when folks here want to give the disclaimer "Well, I'm partially emergent, but I don't buy into everything they say." Buying into everything was never part of the requirement in the first place! The point is simply to join in the dialogue with an openess to listening to other viewpoints and not simply dismissing them out of hand. But nothing says you have to wind up agreeing with everything you hear.
Bottom line, if you're participating in the conversation with a spirit of generosity and charity (as most people here are doing), then you're already part of the emerging church, regardless of whether you agree with everything McLaren (or Tony, or Doug, or Rob, etc.) says or not.
Mike said in "Why George's question is so important"
'When I invoked postmodernism I meant it more in the sense that all truth is perspectival. My understanding of postmodernism is that there are no truly "objective" points of view.'
I think that Mike's idea of 'truth' is not the same as hearsick's or George's.
I would guess that heartsick and George might say that truth is both absolute and to some degree knowable.
I think that these different ideas of what truth is are the source of a lot of the conflict on this blog.
Perhaps understanding this will help with the dialogue.
p.s. my first official post is comment 51 in "why george's question is so important"
-dusty
"A spirit of generosity and charity? What does that mean in the emerging church culture?"
I think Bishop NT Wright describes it best when he talks about a "hermeneutic of love" as opposed to a "hermeneutic of suspicion". We best understand something, Wright says, not merely by critiquing, dissecting, and doubting it, but also by trusting, loving, and respecting it. In fact, when critique and questioning come in the context of love, they yield even more insight than otherwise.
In practice, this means simply seeking to truly understand someone's point of view, and even entertaining the possibility that they could be right, before committing oneself to a stance of opposition or disagreement.
A perfect example of the opposite approach, of the hermeneutic of suspicion, would be your reaction to my references to the CGGC. I was not making a "dig". I was merely making a comparison between denominations (like the CGGC) which require agreement on certain doctrinal issues (as you yourself have been so fastidious about reminding us of), and the emerging church, which is not a denomination or similar creedal organization, but is simply a network of relationships, a conversation among friends.
That you would assume the worst of me - that I was deliberately insulting the CGGC - and then infer from that some lack of appreciation for the CGGC (and you are wrong about that - I have nothing but appreciation for the openness and support we have received from the denomination), is exactly the opposite of what I meant by a spirit of generosity and charity. Thank you for providing such a ready illustration.
-Mike
Forgive my intrusion into the conversation, but I wanted to respond to the "hermeneutic of love" vs. "hermeneutic of suspicion" issue. Adopting a Phil. 4:8 ("whatever is true, whatever is honorable ...")perspective is necessary at all times, but we also need to be "wise as serpents, innocent as doves." Love vs. suspicion is not a helpful dichotomy.
About 10 years ago I heard Walter Brueggemann scorn orthodoxy as monocultural and rigid. He advocated "neighbor love" (orthopraxy) as the alternative to orthodoxy. I argued with him on the basis of accepting the Nicene Creed as a summary of non-negotiable Christian beliefs. (After all, the Council of Nicea consisted of a broad spectrum of Christian leaders from around the known world. Many of them showed up with missing limbs and eyes, due to pre-Edict of Milan persecutions. This "multi-cultural" assembly of the ecumenical church provides the basis of conciliar Christianity as having authority to establish authoritative "positions" -- both doctrinal and social.)
Back to Brueggemann: He didn't like my comment. His suspicion of all things orthodox didn't permit him to have any appreciation for absolutes. I know we have a tendency to declare more things absolute than we should, but I'm willing to submit to the wisdom of the ancient Church, at least in regards to the Nicene Creed.
I believe that "speaking the truth in love" helps us understand the essential link between orthodoxy and orthopraxy.
Just my two cents' worth.
Blessings,
Ben Tobias
I thank everyone for their thoughtful comments. I would like to respond to a few, if I may.
Brian was first out of the starting gate....
He said, “Heartsick said, ‘I believe Brian McLaren to be an inclusivist, and I wouldn’t be surprised if a few years down the line he ventured into universalism. I do believe that’s where the majority of the professing church is headed in the future, based upon my study of biblical prophecy.’ I’m not a dispensationalist, so I’m not sure how to comment on this, though it does make me think that much of your view is filtered through some type of dispensational theology, which began in the 1800’s, not with Jesus.”
Eschatology is one of the areas “agreed to be disagreed upon” in the body of Christ. Although there is an absolute truth to be discerned, I certainly do not claim to have arrived there. I do believe that ultimately there will be a “great apostasy” yet to be realized in the future. This is not based on any dispensational theology, but rather an understanding of some key texts in the New Testament. I neither affirm or deny dispensational theology at the present.
Next, Brian says, “Heartsick is bothered that McLaren has offered his ideas in a novel. This makes me think that Heartsick’s views are being filtered through a modern, enlightened lens which does not appreciate the power of story to state truth clearly. This is also seen in not appreciating mysticism in the church, as well as several comments separating Catholics and Orthodox from acceptable Christianity. The Bible is not a “modern” book, nor is it postmodern, so we must be careful of the lens we use, and make no mistake we use a lens.”
I don’t object to McLaren offering his ideas in a novel. The problem is that I feel he is hiding behind that. He can say, “These aren’t necessary MY beliefs, but rather I’m basing my characters’ thoughts and struggles on those faced by many others in society today.” (not a real quote...just my thoughts) I’m fine with him writing a novel as long as he clearly states outside of that novel what it is he actual believes. I assume I’m correct in believing that McLaren’s novels represent his own beliefs, but how can I know for sure. Stories have their place; I’ve never said that they don’t. However, there is a time for directness as well.
Brian asks, “What’s wrong with looking at Scripture to see if Modernism has blurred the Gospel over the last few hundred years? I think we as teachers must ask this question.”
Again, asking questions for clarity is one thing. Yes, search the scriptures by all means. They are very clear. Gathering together leaders, starting a movement, all based upon questioning clearly-stated, solidly-biblical beliefs is quite another.
Brian then tells me I’m paranoid for believing in a secret agenda by McLaren. I don’t know if McLaren has a secret agenda or not (remains to be seen), but I’m convinced that Satan does, and I believe he will use and is using the emerging church movement to move us that direction.
And, for the record I totally dislike Catholicism! The Catholics do not believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ! What was the reformation about in the first place? It wasn’t just about justice and ending the evil practice of indulgences and abuse within the church. It was about getting back to the truth of scripture and the purity of the Gospel, that salvation comes by grace through faith in Christ alone. The Catholic church has affirmed through each council that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church and its sacraments. Everyone else is “anathema”....cursed. I have no problem stating that the Catholic religion, as presented in its own documents for all to see, is not the true church. No “hinting” here. Was the Holy Spirit working in the early Catholic Church, as you say? Quite probably! But it’s present form is dead, corrupt, and legalistic...all the things that you claim to dislike.
I find those final statements you listed of McLaren’s dangerous for several reasons. One, I’ve already stated. His definition of the “church in all its forms” is entirely too broad. Rather than honoring and serving churches who present “another gospel,” we should be rebuking and reproving, warning others to stay away.
Also, McLaren proposes a new way of “knowing truth.” It seems that yielding to the Holy Spirit as we meditate on the Word is the best way, and always will be.
His “diseases” are misappropriated as well. Once again he’s saying that nobody should be confident or absolute about the scriptures. Rather, the diseases as named in scripture are “sin”, “pride”, “legalism”, “lack of truth”, “lack of knowledge”, “lack of love”, etc.
Lastly, I can accept that different faiths exist, that is bound to happen with the enemy being who he is, and us being who we are. I do differ in the methodology and mission McLaren proposes in being a witness to these different faiths.
Brian, you say you don’t believe in all McLaren says, and yet when you have a chance to respond to the things I have shared, you don’t point out these areas, you only defend the areas you agree with. I’d be interested in hearing what it is within the emergent conversation that you don’t agree with. Maybe then you and I would have some common ground.
Like it or not, McLaren is a major voice in the emerging conversation. Discerning what he is saying is a must in discerning the movement as a whole. His isn't the only voice, but as they say, "the squeaky wheel always gets the grease."
I’ll respond to others later.
Blessings,
“Heartsick”
Heartsick said:
"And, for the record I totally dislike Catholicism! The Catholics do not believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ! What was the reformation about in the first place? It wasn’t just about justice and ending the evil practice of indulgences and abuse within the church. It was about getting back to the truth of scripture and the purity of the Gospel, that salvation comes by grace through faith in Christ alone. The Catholic church has affirmed through each council that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church and its sacraments. Everyone else is “anathema”....cursed. I have no problem stating that the Catholic religion, as presented in its own documents for all to see, is not the true church. No “hinting” here. Was the Holy Spirit working in the early Catholic Church, as you say? Quite probably! But it’s present form is dead, corrupt, and legalistic...all the things that you claim to dislike."
What the hay? I think you need to be careful about broad generalizations here. If we play that game, I could go down a lengthy list of churches and denominations that don't measure up to my idea of a biblical standard. And then I'll end up with a VERY short list of the "pure" churches. (I have a feeling your list would be much shorter than mine.)
Heartsick, I don't suppose you have any appreciation for Chuck Colson's work with Evangelicals and Catholics Together, but you might want to take a look at "Is the Reformation Over?" God is working across denominational boundaries, and has been for centuries.
I certainly don't agree with the Roman church in every area, but we Protestants have a rather shameful history of schism that Catholics have managed to avoid. I think we need to consider the plank in our own eye.
Blessings,
Ben
Ben, you're right. I don't have appreciation for Chuck Colson's work with "Evangelicals and Catholics" together. I think it is compromise, and not the positive kind.
You said, "I certainly don't agree with the Roman church in every area, but we Protestants have a rather shameful history of schism that Catholics have managed to avoid. I think we need to consider the plank in our own eye."
I'm not talking about just any "area." I'm talking about the Gospel. Plenty of "schism" has happened in the Catholic church over that. Those who divided over it are now called Protestants.
I'm not claiming to have the corner on truth in every area I need to. Still plenty of planks to remove. And yet, we are called to judge rightly and discern truth, and I'm sorry, but the Catholic Church does not teach the truth where it counts...in eternal matters.
I don't wish to get into a debate over Catholicism, but I assure you that I have studied the matter and this is the conclusion I've come to.
I know there are major strides being made to blur the lines between Catholicism and Protestantism, but it is also happening with Catholicism and Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. Have you seen the great pictures of the pope kissing the Quran or worshipping in the Hindu temple? Sigh.....
With all due respect,
"Heartsick"
Interesting! After making that last comment about Catholicism, I visited another blog I like to read by Al Mohler. Evidently Pope Benedict XVI made some unusually strong statements concerning Islam that the Catholic Church is now trying to do damage control over. Mohler sites a couple of examples from former popes' stances and the strides that they were making in their relationship with Islam. This pope seems to see things a little differently. It will be interesting to see what results from all of this. Thought you might be interested considering our discussion.
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_print.php?id=774
Sincerely,
"Heartsick"
Heartsick,
Thanks for the conversation. I'm sure it will continue at some time, but for now I'm going to move on to other topics. I think you've achieved your goal of giving a fair warning to the CGGC about McLaren and crew. And we have honored your right to do so.
I'm sure I will share other criticisms of the Emerging Church, but criticism comes way too easy to my tongue, so my hope is to be encouraging in some emerging areas that I'm comfortable with rather than to deconstruct areas I'm not.
If others want to continue this discussion, that is fine. I'm just ready to move on to another subject. Blessings to you.
Brian,
As I said before, I planned to leave the discussion, but I didn't want to leave anything undone. It seems there is always a response to make to the next commenter. In the end, people either claim you are beating a dead horse and want to move on, or they say you never answered the questions or charges they presented and question your merit. :o)
So, with that I will say "thank you" for allowing me to converse at all, for allowing me to assume the identity of "heartsick", and for giving me a chance to bow out and get some work done.
Mike, there were questions you had that I wanted to answer, but I think it's wise to just end my portion here. I appreciated the dialogue and pray for the Spirit's leading in your ministry.
George, perhaps we will meet someday! You just never know who may walk in your church's doors. Press on, brother!
Blessings to each of you! God is so good and faithful!
"heartsick"
P.S. I want to assure you that I won't show back up in the blog as another identity or anonymous commenter. :o)
Ben,
Those are very interesting thoughts about orthodoxy and orthopraxy. I'm not very well familiar with Bruggeman personally, so I can't really comment on what he has to say.
However, I'm not really sure what your comments about that have to do with what I was saying about the hermeneutics of love and suspicion. I don't necessarily see these two sets of concepts as directly related. Certainly it would be wrong simply to equivocate between them.
And I should clarify that a hermeutic of love does not mean being entirely uncritical or automatically agreeing. It simply means giving people and ideas the benefit of the doubt, i.e. considering them "innocent until proven guilty" as it were (or "potentially true until shown to be otherwise"). It means seeking to truly understand before passing judgment. And it suggests that to truly understand, we must respond to a person's ideas with an attitude of love - i.e. seeking to see through that person's eyes, from their point of view, so as to understand why their ideas seem true to them even if your first inclination is to disagree.
And to respond to George's question:
I do have to ask you, are you comfortable operating under a "hermeneutic of love" rather than a "hermeneutic of suspicion?"
I'd have to say, sometimes. I'm trying but I don't always succeed. I have a fairly critical and argumentative personality, and I often tend to form my opinions in reaction to other points of view. Thus, for me, a hermeneutic of love is a spiritual discipline, a habit that I am trying to form in myself.
Peace,
-Mike
Post a Comment
<< Home