Pastor Bob DeWaay's Criticism of Generous Orthodoxy

These are my notes and responses as I worked my way through this website.

First DeWaay makes fun of McLaren by comparing him to a guy off of Green Acres, which is really funny because Green Acres is the epitomy of a modern show, and I'm sure that McLaren sounds like a guy who answers no questions. And he certainly doesn't answer all the questions I wish he would, but he does answer many questions.

The teachings found in A Generous Orthodoxy may sound very unusual to many of my readers because they are. What follows is a summary of these teachings (these issues will be explained in the body of this article). The kingdom as envisioned by McLaren involves holistic, planetary “salvation” without any apocalyptic intervention of God (McLaren despises dispensational theology6). Personal salvation from hell is disparaged as a wrongly motivated “consumer product” that distracts from the more important issue of saving the “whole world” in the here and now.7 Rather than providing Christian hope to a generation of young people who have rejected all forms of Christianity, McLaren undermines the possibility for anyone to have a valid Christian hope based on knowing the truth of the gospel. I say that because he removes the hope of validly knowing anything. I will show that this ill-defined version of Christianity offers a feeble hope based on the idea that God is somehow working in history and creation to bring forth the kingdom of God in this world.

Again I may be in need of some historical help. DeWaay says that McLaren's views are "very unusual."

The kingdom as envisioned by McLaren involves holistic, planetary “salvation” without any apocalyptic intervention of God (McLaren despises dispensational theology6).

Is that really that unusual? Dispensational theology took root less than 200 years ago. Amillennialism is an option in "We Believe." It was taught by St Augustine in the 4th century. I am not a dispensationalist myself. Is that a core truth for anyone?

Personal salvation from hell is disparaged as a wrongly motivated “consumer product” that distracts from the more important issue of saving the “whole world” in the here and now.7

Dispensationalist have no hope for the world. I do. I believe the Gospel is Luke 4 -- "I have come to set the captives free, the blind will see, the prisoners loosed, ..." I guess you might not read this as literal. But what about Matthew 25, the sheep and the goats, when you served the least of these. The earth is in labor, ready to give birth, the Apostle Paul says. It isn't that you don't need to repent. It is that you need to repent and start following Jesus as he brings hope to the world.

I will show that this ill-defined version of Christianity offers a feeble hope based on the idea that God is somehow working in history and creation to bring forth the kingdom of God in this world.

A feeble hope that God is somehow working in history to bring forth his kingdom?!!? "In this world" might be the problem, but Hebrews 11 shows that the faith of the ancients made them take actions as if the kingdom was here. It may not be, but our faith is developed to move in that direction. The ancients were commended for it - Hebrews 11:2

He quotes McLaren:

If I seem to show too little respect for your opinions or thought, be assured I have equal doubts about my own, and I don’t mind if you think I am wrong. I’m sure I am wrong about many things, although I’m not sure exactly which things I’m wrong about. I’m even sure I’m wrong about what I think I’m right about in at least some cases. So wherever you think I’m wrong, you could be right.11

Then he summarizes McLaren's position.

Since we are quite “sure” that we cannot be sure what parts of what God knows that we truly know, and what parts are false, then everything we think we “know” we probably do not really know (maybe – welcome to Hank Kimball theology). So to summarize, McLaren is very sure that he knows that most of what any of us believes to be true is likely false, but then he knows he might be wrong about that.

That isn't what McLaren is saying. It at least isn't what I believe. We can know some things for sure, but then we overdevelop the doctrine and you have to know that at least somebody is wrong about something! And to say, "I'm not wrong about anything" is arrogant and unwise. Then we all come together and say, "We all serve the Lord Jesus Christ!" How do we know who serves Jesus Christ? I go to Matthew 25 and say, "Did you serve the least of these?" I go to John 3 and say, "Did you believe in God's one and only Son?" I go to Peter and ask, "Do you walk in His steps?" I go to the Epistles of John and ask, "Did you repent of your selfish ways?"

McLaren’s doctrine of Christ is confusing. He claims to have known “seven Jesuses.”25 I do not think that this was meant to be a literal claim there were “seven Jesuses,” but rather that various Christian groups have emphasized a different aspect of Jesus and that McLaren has gleaned some useful bits from each of them.

This is his theological approach in a nutshell. Having disparaged that we can know the truth of the Bible by means normally accepted by evangelicals, McLaren then gleans from various versions of Christianity what seems amenable to his own religious sensibilities. This approach characterizes his Christology, where he picks and chooses what he likes from various traditions.

I don't think so. I think McLaren knows Jesus well, and that he was being generous in saying that several groups have focused on various attributes and should expand their picture of Jesus to be fuller. He didn't go to the seven pictures and then pick and choose. This is a liberal view. Anything not conservative or modern is usually tagged liberal. But this isn't liberal.

Mysticism becomes an important part of McLaren’s “emergent” Christianity. He writes, “Many of those little churches [within Roman Catholicism] in the contemplative tradition emphasize how God may be mystically experienced through contemplation, through a quiet mindfulness.”27

Mysticism isn't new. It is the opposite of rationalistic. But that doesn't make it wrong. God speaks, God moves... John speaks of the Spirit as a wind, where it comes and where it goes, we do not know.

In the Biblical version God spoke (authoritatively and propositionally) through authoritative prophets and ultimately through His Son. In the McLaren version, people experienced Jesus and then “reimagined” the term “God.”

God did not speak propositionally through the prophets and His Son. Jesus asked question after question. After he spoke, people constantly asked, "What did he mean?" It amazes me as I read through the Old Testament and prepare to preach it, that I have to decide what was right and what was wrong, because the text is often silent. I suppose you could say it is obvious. There are some propositions. I do think it is clear on adultery, theft, integrity, homosexuality, divorce, promises, and so forth. Paul is fairly propositional, but that doesn't make the Bible propositional. But to say the Bible is a book of propositions makes me wonder if he has read it. I would agree that the Bible is authoritative.

In this approach, rather than searching the authoritative Scriptures for the Biblical doctrine of God, one assumes a God who would fit a type of universe that seems preferable.

This is out of context. McLaren is making an argument, possibly a poor one, but he is not saying make God fit your preference. We see the real problem in the next quote.

McLaren tells why he is a Christian: “The image of God conveyed by Jesus as the Son of God, and the image of the universe that resonates with this image of God best fit my deepest experience, best resonate with my deepest intuition, best inspire my deepest hope, and best challenge me to live with what my friend, the late Mike Yaconelli, called ‘dangerous wonder,’ which is the starting point for a generous orthodoxy.”33

What this says is that McLaren’s orthodoxy is an orthodoxy of personal preference based on the type of universe he wishes to live in.

Interesting. I'm not sure what to say. DeWaay seems to be implying that "It absolutely doesn't matter if I resonate with my Father or not. It doesn't matter that I can look deep and see that the Bible rings true. It is authoritative because God said so. And even though the Koran says God said so as well, it is not true because... Well, I don't know. It doesn't matter what I think." Personally, I have dangerous wonder. I believe Jesus does touch my heart and the Bible rings true.

Well that is half of the article. The good news is that this really is getting to the core issues for me.