Brian McLaren’s new book (A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions That Are Transforming the Faith) has just been released, and it’s already causing a bit of a firestorm. I’m still awaiting my copy, but plan to look through it at his ten questions and interact with those once I’ve been able to consider them in more detail. In the meantime, there are a few things upon which I really feel the need to comment, and since I have a ready-built platform, there’s nobody to stop me. I apologize for the length of the post — I went back to see if I could split it up into two parts, but it just doesn’t work very well to do that. It’s long, but I think it’s important. Thanks in advance for bearing with me, and reading on. And if you get bored, skip down — I summarize at the end.
Now, some of the early reviews I’ve seen of Brian’s latest book suggest that we should have stopped reinventing after A New Kind of Christian rather than pressing for A New Kind of Christianity. It seems the book is Brian’s most controversial one since The Last Word And The Word After That. After Last Word, he took some heavy criticism from evangelicals and other conservatives not part of the Emerging Church Movement. This time around, the criticism is starting on the inside. But that’s just lead-in, at least until I get my own copy for review and determine whether I think Mr. McLaren has gone off the reservation or not. For now, this is about the conversation itself rather than the contents of the book… though I’ll start with some of the early book reviews.
So, to bring you up to date, we have Daryl Dash’s review of Brian’s latest. He says that while the book is engaging and offers discussion on some very important questions, it is ultimately “not a minor tweak of Christianity. It is a repudiation of the church’s understanding of God and the gospel.”
After outlining his initial disagreements with the book, Bill Kinnon rounds up a list of Reviewers Reviewing McLaren’s A New Kind of Christianity.
‘curiosity’ from Nic Askew on Vimeo.
Brian McLaren’s one-question fundamentalism quiz got him in trouble with Scot McKnight. Brian’s post was based on a short video of Seth Godin describing his notion of fundamentalism. In the context of Seth’s definition, the quiz makes sense, but perhaps not in the context of the usual definition of fundamentalism. One might go as far as to suggest it’s a dichotomy between open or closed-mindedness. Brian is suggesting his book is really only for the curious open-minded person. And that’s fair.
Unfortunately, the quiz paired with a misunderstanding of some comments by Doug Pagitt placed alongside an Ooze.tv video with Brian has led a number of folks to conclude that disagreement with Brian (or other Emergent writers) meant that there was a presumed problem with the person voicing the disagreement, allowing the concern to be written off or dismissed in some way. I’m not certain this is actually happening, but based on reviews of the book and my own consideration, I’ve realized two things.
(1) Brian’s New Christianity seems to be reinventing the faith at a foundational level, that of presupposition. As Daryl Dash points out, this makes it difficult to engage with the book in a way that disagrees with its content, since the response is not built on quite the same foundation, but at best, different interpretations of it. This seems to be the case with the cross in Brian’s book, for example. And put another way (from the video), if you don’t like the book, that’s okay, you’re not the book’s audience, you’re not one of the people [they're] trying to help. I suppose that’s fine to a point, but if you have a concern about something that’s being presented to the people they’re trying to help, it can leave you feeling a little out in the cold and unable to dialogue properly. I don’t think that’s necessarily the intention, but the manner in which the faith is being re-framed from the suppositional level and the way in which the audience is defined would certainly have this effect, particularly when aligned with the perception (rightly or wrongly) that once would be entering such a dialogue with an Emergent party who thinks they simply “don’t get it”.
(2) Brian McLaren is less prone to having his ideas sound offensive when he’s speaking than when he is writing. Perhaps one mode has a more clear explanation, which would explain the apparent incongruity. If this is the case, I would want to presume that the written McLaren is more accurately presented than the off-the-cuff spoken McLaren. Some allowance would of course be necessary for spoken explanations of written work, or explanations of written work that has been misunderstood. Though after whatever number of books he’s up to by now, one would expect a high degree of accurate explanation would be found in the latest books so that spoken re-explanations would be less important.
Oh, and one other thing… in this latest book, Brian seems to be ousting every dualism you can come up with, except a few… such as the one where it’s implied that you’ll be curious or you’ll disagree with the book. Put another way, you might say agree or be closed-minded. (Uh… let’s review the problem with dualism and false dichotomies, shall we?)
And then there’s Jeremey Bouma’s post, Goodbye Emergent: Why I’m Taking The Theology of the Emerging Church To Task. Of course, we note he’s not the first nor will he be the last, though in that genre, the posts by Andrew Jones and Sarah Bessey are certainly worth reading to get a flavour of what’s going on. Although most of these partings are theological (”new theological emphases and sectarian attitudes towards church emerge”), some have to do with praxis (”So much for flat hierarchy, community and transparency”). At the end of the day, it’s a case of those representing/represented by Emergent Village morphing into something other than what was hoped for by those who are now distancing — “other than” in terms of either theology or praxis. Most if not all of the departers are framing it as not being a break in relationship — which is a point to keep in mind for a minute or two.
You can follow the comment threads on most of the recent posts that I’ve just linked and find that they are long and at times heated. Following on those comments, The Ooze’s Mike Morell has written a thoughtul post On the McLaren Nay-sayers and David Fitch has offered some thoughts on The Incarnational Approach to Leading in Our Disagreements. And you don’t have to dig very deep into the comments to discern that we’ve got some pretty big disagreements on hand. And it’s so bad that even the anti-emergents have noticed. Maybe we really do need to watch what we say or how we say it. Jamie Arpin-Ricci tackles the subject very well, and Jordon Cooper wonders about Theological Debate as a Blood Sport. Yes, there ought to be a better way to handle this… and but we might begin with thicker skin, less defensiveness, respect for the party being critiqued, and a much more cautious way of saying it.
One thing that would help is some clarification concerning the relationship of the Emergent Trinity — that is, Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, and Tony Jones — to the Emergent Village organization. While none are listed as current EV board members, all have been in the past, and all remain associated with EV in the public eye. When one of them proffers a theological idea, it extends through that association to EV — rightly or wrongly. While it may be said that they don’t formally speak for EV, the fact that EV has historically not responded to affirm or deny such ideas leaves a de facto association with their theology firmly intact. Despite the fact that this “first generation” of EV leaders isn’t listed as formal board members, it would be difficult to imaging the cessation of important friendships, conversations, and mentoring relationships between the past and current generations (with the exception of some of the first generation who seem to have distinctly become a little distant from the current one).
So does the theology of this Emergent Trinity fairly represent the majority of people associated with EV? We don’t know. Although characterized as a conversation, it must be noted that there are precious few voices within EV who are publicly disagreeing with any of the theology being promoted by this Trinity. If one were to gather up the theological threads that have been found objectionable and roll them into a single package, it would indicate that Emergent™ denies original sin and the concept of sin in general, doesn’t hold the Bible as fully authoritative (or inspired, really), denies hell, doesn’t fully articulate a model for atonement (as long as it isn’t penal substitution), is panentheistic, and cannot affirm the traditional creeds — to name a few. To be clear, this wouldn’t be a valid codification of Emergent™ theology… but stringing it together like this makes it (a) obvious why there’s increasing push-back to the varied theologies that are being offered, and (b) much more glaring that there’s no discussion that includes push-back from within the Emergent Village association.
While not specifically stated, this confusion must be a complicating factor among those who have left their association with EV, and the exodus has left many people asking if the emerging church is dead. It would seem evident that the answer is no, not yet — the point that Jonathan Brink attempts to make on the EV blog. He says that, in fact, it is maturing. I think he’s correct in the bottom line of that assessment, mainly because it’s precisely what I began to see at the beginning of October 2008 (Emergent Terminology: It’s Not About Terminology) and outlined more clearly in April 2009 (Emerging Fractures & the Great Emergence).
So yes, you heard it here first. And yes, we’ve got fractures happening, which yes, reflects a maturation process for the emerging church. It shouldn’t have to get ugly though, and some of the lines are being drawn a little heavily with a quick labelling of the parties. I suppose it should be carefully noted that it’s a separate question to ask whether the emerging church is dead (no) than to ask whether Emergent™ is dead. People may tire of the emerging church conversation, but for the most part it’s Emergent Village that they’re distancing themselves from, even as they continue in an emerging/missional vein of theology and praxis.
It leaves me thinking, “Just call me Neo.”
Neo
Nickname for a character in The Matrix trilogy of movies. Thomas A. Anderson (Neo) was born 11th March 1962 in “Lower Downtown, Capital City, USA,” son of John Anderson and Michelle McGahey, he attended Central West Junior High and Owen Patterson High. Thomas Anderson is one of billions of humans neurally connected to the Matrix, unaware that the world he lives in is a virtual reality only. In his legitimate activities, he is a programmer, but he is also a computer hacker (cracker), in the course of which he learns of “The Matrix”, later described as a vague notion that Neo has felt his whole life that “there is something wrong with the world”.
While I can relate in many ways, that’s not the “Neo” I was thinking of.
neo-
1. a combining form meaning “new,” “recent,” “revived,” “modified,” used in the formation of compound words: neo-Darwinism; Neolithic; neoorthodoxy; neophyte [Dictionary.com].
I remember thinking it a compliment when I was first labeled “neo-pentecostal”, and I’m wondering now if the best descriptor I could adopt might be Neo-Emergent. After all, I’m asking most of the same questions as the Emergent Village crowd — it’s just that in so many cases, I’m getting different answers. Most of the answers I’m getting align more closely with the missional conversation, and it’s been this way for a while now. “Missional conversation” having now been described by someone in the Emergent Village circle as the “missional right.” And perhaps the missional conversation is generally to the right of the Emergent Village one, but it’s still left of a lot of evangelical ones… with overlap on both sides, of course. Such is the nature of a fragmenting conversation that is continuting to splinter into smaller conversations. Think of these more as “working groups,” because honestly, it was probably harder to get a lot of work done in the midst of such a large conversation. The smaller ones are often focused more on praxis… on getting some work done.
Somewhere in this mix, I guess I’ve become Neo-Emergent. I was never formally an Emergent Village affiliate, though I’ve been “in conversation” with so many who are over the past 5½ years. There are no formal ties to break, though I always said I wasn’t Emergent so much as I was part of the emerging church — or “the church that is emerging.” Later on, I began calling it emerging/missional, and this is where I still resonate most. So perhaps I’ve always been Neo-Emergent. I’ve been asking the same questions, but in a lot of cases I’ve been coming up with different answers. Maybe I’m much more convinced that we need a new kind of Christian, but not so much that we should be attempting to formally structure a new kind of Christianity. Someplace between these two books, the path I was on began to diverge a lot more from the one that Emergent seems to be on. But now by calling myself “Neo-Emergent,” I can keep some of the great terminology from emergence theory (and invent a new badge for my blog sidebar ;^))
So the Emergent/emerging church conversation is fracturing. It’s a sign of maturation as people beginning the reconstruction process and are not comfortable reconstructing their theology in quite the same way as some of the people with whom they were very comfortable deconstructing it. Deconstruction requires a lot less affirmation of the same facts than does reconstruction. Simple fact. As Mike Morell quoted me from earlier this year, I really am sad that people who shared a pulpit at the beginning of the decade won’t share the time of day at the end of it (or however I put that). I’m not particularly sad that their theology has diverged — that simply is what it is, and was always inevitable. What saddens me is the treatment of the other. The more I’m around this emerging/missional conversation and meet some of the “big names” within it, the more I find tales of sin, mistreatment, broken fellowship, and even grudges. This deeply saddens me, not because it’s in any way unique, but because it’s no different than the rest of the church, or the world. There are things in which some parts of the body of Christ fails utterly to distinguish themselves, and this is one. And it’s hard to assign blame here. Some have distanced themselves graciously and quietly from EV, while others have become vocal critics. This has left the latest round of distancers and those sympathetic with them feeling a slight cold shoulder from EV. I have nothing concrete to point to in order to justify or substantiate this feeling, but I feel it and it seems to be a feeling that resounds with people on the fringes of EV. Whether this is real or imagined, intentional or not, it’s a little difficult to fault Emergent™ entirely for any feelings of apprehension based on the track records of those who became vocal critics. No names mentioned, *cough* *markdriscoll* *cough* but feelings of betrayal on both sides wouldn’t likely be a mischaracterization, though such a conclusion is in my view just wrong.
And if I really bored you someplace along the way and you skipped ahead to the end, here’s what I’ve just said:
- Lots of emergent people are starting to argue about theology. It’s because of divergent paths, but some of the conversation feels less welcoming.
- The emerging church conversation is fracturing, but it’s a mark of its maturation process.
- I told you, like a year ago, that all this was coming. Don’t look so surprised.
- Turns out I’m Neo-Emergent.
If you want to know what each of these means, well, you’ll have to skip back up and read some more.
What do you think on each of these points? Am I on or off the mark? And are you Neo-Emergent?
Subscribe Posts
February 16th, 2010 at 1:09 am
Well.
Yes, it was long.
But I don’t know how it could be any shorter.
Well done,
MR Bill
And we all know what the MR stands for, eh. :-)
February 16th, 2010 at 1:18 am
Well said. As always, you have the ability to articulate what many of us were feeling.
Peace,
Jamie
February 16th, 2010 at 9:08 am
“…tales of sin, mistreatment, broken fellowship, and even grudges…”
Well … those tales are as old as humankind. Certainly, they are liberally sprinkled throughout our Scriptures. The take-away God seems to want us to get is that covering them up is not the path to redemption, reconciliation and recovery. But still here we are some several thousand years later and our automatic response is, “I was naked.” and when pushed, “She made me do it.”
I wonder what would happen if we could manage to truly live with open hands (that is, transparently and vulnerably)?
February 16th, 2010 at 9:16 am
I’m post-confused… time for a beer…
Seriously, If anyone ever makes a systematic study of the post-evangelical/emerging/emergent christianity, it will be unreadable and cunfusing…
Maybe I should give up on reading emergent blogs for lent… In the hope afterwards that the emerging discussion doesn’t sound any longer like a rapper that’s rapping about his own death all the time so there’s time again to think about following Jesus…
I will onlye speak about ANKOC after I’ve read it, and I didn’t recieve it yet. But it’s true that I like his questions more than some of his answers…
There’s no emergent in belgium. We really need Jesus here, and we need to engage the questions Brian and the others are posing before most of the people outside the church can even have a conversation with us, true… But some things start to sound more like the great emergency than anything else…
shalom & Gods Peace and Truth and Light to all of you…
Bram
February 16th, 2010 at 10:10 am
“You had me at Neo.”
February 16th, 2010 at 10:12 am
Actually, I guess I was non-Emergent when it started, but was involved with pre-Emergent when it was just emerging, so I guess that makes me post-pre-and-non-Emergent now. So, perhaps Sir Brambonius can add those to his lists of confusion to add to diffusion.
And since I’m being more accurate than necessary there, could you, like, edit my previous comment to:
“Shuh uhp! You had me at nee-oh!”
Thanks.
February 16th, 2010 at 10:28 am
(sorry for all the typo’s and other errors in my post…)
February 16th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Meo-Emergent? Me too, I suppose. I’ve had a series of posts at my blog the last couple of weeks reflecting similar themes.
Here’s what I’m seeing as the trend leading up to this.
Emergent was reactive against the dominant form of Evangelicalism. In this they moved away from the usual “leaders” and proposed alternative forms of community and mission. People from all kinds of theological places were able to find a common unity in what was essentially an ecclesial reform movement that took more seriously, rather than less, the whole testimony of the Gospels and all of Scripture.
Over the last year especially, however, there has been a strong upsurge going on in the background, and increasingly in the foreground, as progressive theologians have tried to equate emerging theology with progressive theology.
Suddenly non-emerging voices are coming into play who are bringing in their old issues and battles, and as they were in the battlelines in the old Liberal vs. Conservative fights of the last however many years, there is an increasing line being drawn. Lines which have, in essence, very little in fact to do with actual emerging church ideals.
Now, that’s not to say that I think these lines should be kept up and no conversation should be had. I think there’s a great new chance to listen to all sides of the various theological spectrum. Progressive theology should have a voice and instead of being dismissed there should be conversation and discussion, even if not always agreement.
However, to say this new trend of incorporating conventionally liberal theologians as being themselves emerging voices is fairly offtrack.
In other words, I think you’re keeping to the core of what prompted the emerging conversation in the first place.
And there’s a whole crowd of people who are wondering who all these people on the fringes of emerging, or who have wandered to the fringes, are really about.
Emerging is emerging, it is not repackaged church growth, updated seeker sensitive, diluted evangelicalism, deconstructed pop spirituality, nor is it rebranded progressive theology. There are intersections, but we reach out in a lot of other directions with a lot of other priorities than to change Christianity into a non-new model that has had its chance to shine for quite a long while without great success in depth or reach.
If neo-emerging is the name for those like you, like us, who are sticking to the original motives of emerging church and want to stay on track with progressing towards a better realized conception of what the Holy Spirit has been doing, is still doing, and will continue to do then I’ll sign up. But, I might keep fighting still for the non-neo “emerging” label not to be co-opted.
February 16th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Patrick,
I very much appreciate what you say here but I do think the roots of Emergent are important. Emergent came out of certain relationships built during Leadership Network sponsored events. It was built in an environment that appeared to be as much about the marketing of books & conferences and the building of personal platforms as it was about engaging the worldwide emerging church conversation. (See some of Steve Taylor – Emerging Kiwi’s comments over the years.
In our present heightened awareness based on McLaren’s new book, I think Jordon Cooper’s assessment of this marketing of product is particularly apt,
When it is simply about the next hip book or conference it is not emerging, it’s just a new kind of modernity – with better haircuts, of course.
February 16th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Bill, a very good point. I think, for me, I never approached emerging church stuff through those forums, and remain very much an outsider to them, so I don’t think about it. But it’s true. The Movement as it is has to include a discussion of what you mention.
The Evangelical Machine and the Progressive Hordes reflect Modernity in a lot of their approaches.
“with better haircuts, of course.”
And facial hair. And an assortment of Apple products…
February 16th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
…silly me, I posted a comment on the new, or is that neo, blog. LOL ;^) What does one expect with from an AbiSomeone, eh?
February 17th, 2010 at 12:21 am
I thought one of the points that impacted me most in “A New Kind of Christian” was the compulsive need of modernists to label things/people and draw lines in the sand.
I felt hopeful that the emergent umbrella/tent would be big enough for everyone who want to dialogue for the sake of the church in a post modern world.
Looks like it isn’t and is falling into some of the same holes that the modern church fell into which caused us to find ourselves looking for a new thing in the first place….
February 17th, 2010 at 4:04 am
Whew!!! that’s a lot words. Good words as we navigate forward I hope. Neo!…who would have thought.
February 17th, 2010 at 8:23 am
Some of what Patrick wrote really resonated with me. I think there has been too much reactionary thinking – reaction against conservative evangelicals. There’s always a lot of danger in getting defined by what you are against rather than what you are for.
Most of the basic substance of Brian’s past books (I have only skimmed a couple of parts of ANKOC, so can’t conclude yet on it) I have strongly agreed with, but there’s some of the presenting that I react strongly against. And this is the implication that this stuff is new, which is certainly reflected in the title of the new book.
Often while reading Brian’s writings, I’ve said in my head something like this, “Brian, you write as if this is a new invention, but these are understandings I’ve heard all my life and my dad preached, and they go back 2 millenia.” We don’t need a new kind of Christianity; we need authentic Christianity. Sometimes that’s been very weak in the institutional church (most of the last 1600+ years, in fact), but there have always been those that held to it.
Brian sometimes acknowledges this at least to some extent, but overall he comes across as presenting new ideas. This naturally leads to others thinking he is throwing out the baby with the bath water, even though he isn’t if you read him carefully. He’s more rescuing the baby from toxic substances in the bath water.
There is no doubt in my mind that this is a strong factor in the vehemence with which some resist Brian. And it is different when he speaks, because as a person he is nothing like the image people get when they see him as this harsh person recklessly attacking the foundations of the Christian faith. His persona exudes the Christian virtues, but people often don’t get that when they’re reading him with the purpose of examining his doctrinal purity. He’s extremely hard to dislike in person.
I’m wondering if my church – Cedar Ridge Community Church – is neo-emergent. It certainly is closer to emergent than it was when Brian was pastor. Matthew, our current pastor, once remarked that Cedar Ridge was not like many would expect who have read Brian. He meant that is was much more conventional than one would assume. Even though we’ve moved away from much of the conventional conservative evangelical stuff that was present when Brian was pastor, we are still much more openly connected to historical Christianity than a lot of the new and attack rhetoric of the “Emergent trinity.”
February 17th, 2010 at 9:56 am
Hi — I asked this question of Morrell, but thought I might as well do it here, too:
Is the “neo-emergent” thing tongue-in-cheek and I’m not getting it? If it is, it’s funny. But you seem kind of earnest, so I’m not quite sure whether to enjoy a good chuckle or start rolling my eyes.
February 17th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Thanks for the exposure. I really love this writer….will read.
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:23 pm
Alright, here’s the deal: I regret using ‘missional right.’ It might shock many of you to know that I consider myself missional in many of my influences and practices – even though I’m clearly also ‘emergent.’ Here’s what I said in my defense when I first clarified what I meant by the term:
“I’m very sensitive to how ‘missional-right’ would be received, and I don’t use the term lightly. I only use it after several years of folks framing ‘emergent’ as ‘left’ and ‘emerging’ and centrist, and more recently, via folks with Origins et al, explaining ‘missional’ as culturally-engaged but Lausanne-affirming conservatives. “Right” is not pejorative, but rather the self-identification I’m seeing as relative to emergent.”
As I’ve noted the bemusement and/or outrage engendered at such placement, I’ve reevaluated. ‘EmergING,’ while existing from around 2005-2008, is definitely dead now. No one (in North America at least) self-identifies that way now. So if Neo-Calvinists are ‘right’ and Emergent is ‘left’ (and I have friends in both camps who would debate this, but speaking in broad generalities), then missional folks would be to the left of the NeoCalvs and to the right of the Emergents – which is kind of like saying missional folks are centrist, yes?
So let the endless nomenclature be heretofore revised: I hereby now make my designation of missionals, with God as my witness,
the missional moderates…
or missional middle. :)
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:38 am
“‘EmergING,’ while existing from around 2005-2008, is definitely dead now. No one (in North America at least) self-identifies that way now.”
I know of congregations today in the USA which self-identify as “emerging”
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:52 am
Right, Bill (Samuel). I haven’t stopped identifying myself as emerging, as in “emerging/missional” — but I do think there’s something to what Mike is saying in that it’s not dead, but on the decline, used now primarily as a means of distancing oneself from Emergent™. Those formerly identified as emerging for the same reason have probably dropped the label or migrated to missional.
All of which might be considered somewhat ironic for a postmodern bunch to be so concerned about labels…
June 16th, 2010 at 8:13 am
Maynard,
Here is a link to my research of two years examining the theology, philosophy, and methodology of McLaren’s preaching. I believe it affirms the theological concerns you mention above. http://theresurgence.com/preaching-and-the-emerging-church.
February 16th, 2010 at 1:13 am
@bromaynard is Neo=Emergent. Who knew? http://bit.ly/9esiH2
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
February 16th, 2010 at 1:18 am
RT @kinnon: @bromaynard is Neo-Emergent. Who knew? http://bit.ly/9esiH2
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
February 16th, 2010 at 8:44 am
Guess what? I’m Neo-Emergent! http://bit.ly/9n930S http://neoemergent.org
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
February 16th, 2010 at 9:01 am
RT @bromaynard: Guess what? I’m Neo-Emergent! http://bit.ly/9n930S http://neoemergent.org // And I’m postconfused, time for a beer…
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
February 16th, 2010 at 11:56 am
RT @bromaynard: Guess what? I’m Neo-Emergent! http://bit.ly/9n930S http://bit.ly/9dRg14 Good post.
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
February 16th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
A reminder from last night: @bromaynard is Neo-Emergent. Who knew? http://bit.ly/9esiH2
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
February 17th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Don’t think Wittmer;s ravings would survive a good peer review. He takes a lot out of context, puts Brian in boxes that Brian hasn’t placed himself, and paints a grossly misleading picture of the book. It’s a hatchet job, not a respectable academic analysis.
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 17th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
The kingdom of God is like a little bit of yeast. It grows and permeates the whole loaf. The entire thing is under continual change.
Look at all of the change in the Book of Acts alone. 120 becomes 3000. The apostles are forced to leave Jerusalem. Peter goes to Gentiles. And I supposes, David, that you’ve even changed.
Meanwhile, “interpret” is the right word. You hit on it perfectly. You have interpreted that some things are not open for interpretation. That is one of the most postmodern moves I’ve ever seen. Well done.
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 17th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
I’d suggest you check the New Testament for places where it seems to define essentials. There aren’t many of them, and I don’t think Brian questions any of them.
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 17th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Thanks Kevin. I suppose you’re right! I definitely have interpreted that there are some un-interpretables.
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 17th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
Hi David,
We all interpret. For me, I start with “Love God, and love others.” The rest — as they say — is commentary. But even commentary is fun to discuss. Thanks for the conversation.
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 17th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
I would call substitutionary atonement the only essential. I wish I could provide you with a quote where McLaren says “I don’t believe in the atonement of Christ’s death” but I cannot. Instead, I must rely on my INTERPRETATION (Kevin) of his writings and speakings, that he does NOT agree.
The following quote is from a podcast that McLaren did with Leif Hanson. It’s tricky because McLaren is quoting another Christian leader, who he says he will leave unnamed because he thinks it would hurt that particular person’s reputation. Anyway, the quote goes like this:
“The traditional understanding says that God asks of us something that God is incapable of Himself. God asks us to forgive people. But God is incapable of forgiving. God can’t forgive unless He punishes somebody in place of the person He was going to forgive. God doesn’t say things to you—Forgive your wife, and then go kick the dog to vent your anger. God asks you to actually forgive…. And there’s a certain sense that, a common understanding of the atonement presents a God who is incapable of forgiving. Unless He kicks somebody else.”
That smacks of arguing against the essential Bill…doesn’t it?
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 17th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Kevin, I agree that the conversation has been good. I disagree with your interpretive starting point.
Although I would not call this an interpretive starting point (I would argue that this is the only starting point), I begin from: Jesus Christ is God’s Son, He is my only hope for salvation, and He is the forgiveness of my sins by faith.
Thanks to you too.
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 17th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
David, you’re right, I was predisposed to agree with McLaren before I cracked open his newest book. Like all people, I am to some extent a prisoner of my own prejudices. Also like most thoughtful people, I try to remain at least somewhat suspicious of my own capacity for error, and therefore am always interested to hear what those whose views differ from my own have to say. Obviously, when reading someone with whom I suspect I disagree, I must exercise a measure of discernment to make sure that I neither A) dismissively reject the other position even if it has merit, or B) uncritically accept an argument merely on the strength of how eloquently it is presented. The key word here is discernment. As I said above, I believe it is a fair Biblical principle to “judge a tree by the fruit it bears.” When those who seek to critique McLaren do so reflexively out of anger, contempt, or perhaps even hysteria, I find that considering the tone of their argument is usually all the discernment I need to do.
I would encourage folks like yourself who seek a vigorous debate of the merits and defects of McLaren’s ideas to begin with a basic assumption of good faith on his (our) part and a sterling commitment to good faith on your own part. As Meister Eckhart said, “I am able to be in error, but I cannot be a heretic, for the first belongs to the intellect, the second to the will.” Even if you suspect bad faith on your opponent’s part, attacking him (or her) rather than merely critiquing the position will, in the end, serve his cause rather than your own. Just some food for thought.
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 17th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
I’d like to offer this note to those who are offended by McLaren’s ideas, or disagree with them, or would like to vigorously engage them in dialogue:
If you are cruel, if you take cheap shots, if you don’t exhibit love and grace, if your hyperbole is mean, if your attacks are personal, if you unfairly caricature rather than accurately and carefully quote, if you find the weakest part of McLaren’s arguments and exaggerate them to draw broad generalizations about all of his ideas…
… I can’t consider any of your critique worth my time. I just can’t hear you clearly.
In defending a faith based on love, if you don’t show love, you become a joke to me. Yes, I would probably laugh at you.
You can’t do anything to make yourself heard by me or be taken seriously in your defense of the Christianity you love unless you give me fair and honest reason to believe you love Brian McLaren.
In other words, if you want to tell me about the Truth, you should know up front that I don’t believe there exists any Truth separated from Love.
This is what you’re up against.I hope this is helpful to those who want to preach to anyone other than their own choir. Maybe you don’t care about me. That’s cool, I don’t know that I’m all that great or special. But if you’re interested in inviting me to reconsider my response to McLaren’s book (I am enthusiastically supportive and grateful) I feel I owe it to you to let you know what it is going to take to get through to me.
I’m not trying to control the debate, I’m simply trying to offer an accurate description of where I’m at. I’ve tried to be impressed by sharp and cutting rhetoric, by separating Christian ideas from human lives. I’m simply unable to do it.
You (or even I) may not like it, but this is my most honest assessment of the way it is.
Peace,
Dave
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 17th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
I would also add Hebrews 11:6 here.
“But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.”
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 17th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Dave, I absolutely agree! Amen!
I also absolutely disagree with what McLaren is saying! Although I think I’ve done that in a logical, non-personal way.
I also agree with most of the following statement:
“If you are cruel, if you take cheap shots, if you don’t exhibit love and grace, if your hyperbole is mean, if your attacks are personal, if you unfairly caricature rather than accurately and carefully quote, if you find the weakest part of McLaren’s arguments and exaggerate them to draw broad generalizations about all of his ideas…I can’t consider any of your critique worth my time.”
The only thing I would modify about that is perhaps someone discussing this topic could misquote unwittingly. Maybe their wires have been crossed unbeknownst to them. I would suggest that at that point, you should try to hear them.
All in all though, I agree. Although the cruel, cheap-shot-taking, mean, personal nay-sayers may be speaking truth and accurately defending the faith, the manner in which they do it DOES make them a joke in the eyes of a God who calls us to bless those who curse us and love those who hate us.
But allow me to reiterate…although it may prevent you from HEARING them, it doesn’t change the fact that they could be right! (and some of them are!).
David
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 17th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
I like Brian McLaren, but he is not my “guru” and the chances are, most of us who like him are not “groupies.” I’ve been reading a lot of slanders and misrepresentations of Mr. McLaren’s person over the past week. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised.
I don’t agree with everything he says in this latest book, but this isn’t “new Christianity” (something which he does make clear), it’s actually rather old, and I believe, we could use more of it.
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 17th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
David, for some reason there’s no Reply option on your post so I’m responding via a reply on my original post.
“God is incapable of forgiving” is certainly not something I would consider an essential.
I’m not aware of any place in the NT that indicates that one particular view of the atonement is essential. I don’t think any one theory fully captures the truth of the atonement.
There are things (not many) in the NT which are indicated as being essential. Substitionary atonement is not one of them. I’m bothered by your apparent rejection of the essentials indicated in the NT. I think Brian accepts those essentials. Who’s the “heretic”?
Jesus said, “I am the way.” It seems to me that it is Jesus, not some particular doctrinal formulations, that we should be following. And remember it was those who most had their doctrines all figured out and cast in stone that Jesus had the most trouble with.
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 17th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Bill,
I’m encountering the same problem. Can’t seem to find a reply button on yours either. Weird.
Anyway, I didn’t mean to reject the essentials of the NT that you are referring to (although I’d have to see a list just to be sure), but instead I meant to drastically emphasize the importance of Christ’s death for our sins. That’s why I called it “the only essential”. Because the reason Jesus Christ came to this earth was to fulfill that purpose – forgiveness of sins.
So please allow me to rephrase my previous statement – SA is probably THE MOST IMPORTANT essential.
As far as backing up that doctrine some (of the many) Biblical groundings for it are as follows:
“and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.” 1 Peter 2:24
“But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.” Romans 5:8-9
“and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood” Revelation 1:5
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 17th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Everybody who thinks that Brian Mc is a liberal has never encoutered real liberal theology. Even the catholic priest in my grandmothers parish, someone in whom I can feel the Spirit and the Heart of Jesus for the lost is way more ‘liberal’ than BDM…
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 17th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Carl,
I agree that the key word is discernment. I’ve been reading a lot about McLaren and some other E/C folk out there for a few months now. Immediately it enraged me to see people pulling apart the fabric of the truth, preferring something that is more palatable for the masses, something that is more relevant to modern society, and something that is less exclusive (and less seemingly archaic).
I did a lot of reading, because it helps none at all to shoot off at the mouth in a half-cocked fashion without the facts, attacking only byte-sized portions of what a new “Christian leader” says. It’s better to sit back and listen, reflect on the whole statement of faith (because everything is a statement of faith), and then react. This was my good faith assumption on the part of McLaren.
I’ll admit, I haven’t been as thorough as I could have, and I’m still learning. But from everything I’ve seen come from McLaren, it is not Christianity (for my reasons why, we could begin with my dialog with Bill about substitutionary atonement). Truth is, I’m angry about the Truth being sloshed through the mud in the midst of McLaren’s spiritual journey. That’s why I posted in this forum in the first place.
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 17th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
David, there are a lot of things in scripture that are true but aren’t presented as essentials to believe. There are very few places where things are presented in that way, e.g., Romans 10:9 where just 2 beliefs are stated as needed for salvation.
Atonement is a complicated doctrinal matter where different theories all cite scriptures as evidencew for that particular theory. I don’t see where belief in a particular theory is posited as an essential in the NT.
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 17th, 2010 at 10:13 pm
Dave H — I found your comment to be brilliant.
Loverly…!
Shalom, Dena
P.S. May I steal it, with credit?
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 17th, 2010 at 10:15 pm
More brilliance, this time from Kevin (from whom I’ve come to expect brilliance!):
“I start with “Love God, and love others.” The rest — as they say — is commentary. ”
Bingo!
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 17th, 2010 at 10:49 pm
Dave H –
Amen.
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 18th, 2010 at 2:56 am
Hi David, in the context of the gospels I don’t find that as a starting point. I see the starting point as nothing more than a profound invitation to follow…and with no real understanding, ” they followed. There is no where within the text of any gospel interpretation of the disciples making, and declaring, ” a statement of faith.” If you suggest, Peter’s declaration at the interestion of a road on the way Caesarea Philipi. even in the orginal Greek text it does not come close to your interpretation. Even with in the context of the last supper in the upper room which has been made sacred in our liturgy/eucharist and communion, there is no statement of faith. In fact I would venture to say, the disciples had no idea of what was going on. I find it all so interesting that in our christianization of Jesus radical scandalous faith of submission and unrestrained following…we’ve turned it into a static system of belief. Where if ” i ” don’t affirm what ” you ” believe I’m out. David, I would ask you. ” what did Jesus want his disciples to believe?” Not the church, not you…what did Jesus ask his disciples to believe?
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 18th, 2010 at 5:19 am
Mike – a well hosted debate. I still await my copy of the book, but glad you are engaged in the inevitable hubris, hosting, lurking, parrying, holding.
And thanks for taking the time to suggest those deconstructions.
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 18th, 2010 at 8:42 am
Ron,
You are absolutely correct. That is most definitely not the starting point of three of the four Gospels. Matthew, Mark and Luke all tell the story of Christ asking these seemingly unbecoming men to follow Him on a journey which would inevitably reveal his divinity, his holiness and his majesty to them. John is a different story, since he begins with Christ’s divinity and almost wholly focuses on Him being “the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world”.
I think I understand what you’re saying: Jesus didn’t require some kind of statement of faith to follow Him. He just asked His disciples to listen, to get up on their feet and follow Him wherever He may take them.
You’re right! And their story is a great example of the kind of faith we need to have in Him. But just because the whole story wasn’t revealed to them, doesn’t mean we have to act as if the whole story isn’t revealed to us! It is! It’s silly to act as if we’re following Jesus the same way they were – the world had no idea who Jesus was at that point, so all they could do was act on faith and hope that the journey Jesus was leading them down wasn’t some crazed ideology. Thanks to the Gospels and the epistles, we know who Jesus was and is, and we know what He asks of us.
You’re argument – that it wasn’t a static system of belief back then, so it shouldn’t be a static system of belief now – is faulty. Back then, Jesus was in the process of revealing Himself. Why should we compare ourselves to (and try to act in the mindset of) the disciples who were watching the Jesus story unfold? We already know how it ends!
I find your logic kind of absurd if you want to know the truth. I do mean that in the nicest way possible though, if that helps!
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 18th, 2010 at 8:53 am
For Mr. Wittmer, a seminarian professor, to essentially label McLaren “unchristian” and a “heretic” without allowing any clarification or elaboration on the part of the author is unbelievable! (And Wittmner wonders why McLaren has some issues with seminaries?!) From Wittmer’s blog:
“After examining Brian’s unchristian biases in his first 5 theological questions, I am reconsidering my commitment to working through each of his 5 practical questions (but I will keep slogging away, as it’s almost Lent). If Brian’s theological commitments place him outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy, why should we care what he thinks we should do about the church? To paraphrase Tertullian in his Prescription of Heretics, “It’s not your church!”
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 18th, 2010 at 9:01 am
I agree, Ron. David, I don’t think our situation is quite as different as you do. I think there’s a lot we don’t understand. We have a human temptation to construct in our minds a logical understanding of it all. But these logical treatments never capture the full essence. The essence is in relationship, not in a logical formulation.
Doctrines can be helpful windows into the truth. But we need to be careful to be clear that they are NOT the Truth. Jesus Christ is the Truth. Doctrines can shed some light on Him, but they are always imperfect and we need a great deal of humility when making doctrinal statements. Doctrines can very easily be harmful. They can create blinders to seeing and hearing Christ because we are relating to Him within our established limitations and Christ is beyond human limitations.
Nowhere did Jesus indicate that doctrinal purity was essential, or even important. Even if my doctrinal understanding is closer to the mark than yours, it does not necessarily follow than I am closer to Christ than you. Even “heretics” or “unbelievers” are sometimes closer than “believers” – a point implicit in some of Jesus’ stories, such as the parable of the Good Samaritan.
The danger of trying to put Christ in a box of our own making is a very great one, and one of the main ways we do that is through treating doctrines as something more than they are.
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 18th, 2010 at 9:13 am
Bill,
The story of Jesus has been told. He has revealed just exactly what the Father wanted revealed to us as his children. Of COURSE it’s a journey, and of COURSE it’s more amazing than we could possibly understand.
As Kevin said (I think), I have changed so much since I first accepted Christ as my Lord and Savior that my viewpoints (and behaviors) are barely recognizable from when I first started.
But to maintain that it’s all just loose ground, ever open for interpretation, is taking the journey that Christ does invite us on, and blowing it wide open in order to allow for the addition of our own human desires. With all this talk of construction, and capturing the logical essence of it all, you make it sound as if Christ never gave absolutes. He did. He said that He was the only Way to the Father. He said our work is to Believe in Him. And He said that we must carry our cross and follow Him.
You can explain those truths away all day by saying I’m adhering to unnecessary doctrines, that I’m putting Christ in a box, or that I’m constructing what Christ said out of a world view that has been laid on top of Christianity for thousands of years, but at the end of the day you have to decide whether or not it’s just your personal aversion to those truths that’s driving you to see things that way.
Regardless, I have thoroughly enjoyed our time together. At this point, I feel like we’ve come to the crux of the matter, and I don’t think I need to say anymore.
God Bless!
David
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 18th, 2010 at 9:53 am
Jeff, you used this same logic on Wittmer’s blog (http://mikewittmer.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/brian-mclaren-a-new-kind-of-christianity-question-6-3/) and you were given some very good points as to why that logic fails. You did not respond to those postings (for whatever reason I do not know), but suffice it to say, you have not dealt with the refutations I and the other commentators have supplied you with. So I will supply them here as well.
1. McLaren has been given years to clarify himself, and it’s now pretty easy to draw the conclusion that McLaren does not represent Biblical Christianity.
2. All of McLaren’s statements have been made in the public realm. The Matthew 18 principle of taking your brother aside in private to rebuke him for his sins addresses the issue of handling a sin that is “one against another”. In McLaren’s instance, he is publicly trying to sway the flock with false teaching. This is not a matter of personal sin. Therefore Wittmer’s actions of interpreting McLaren’s statement through the Biblical filter (to determine their accuracy and validity), and then going on to warn other Christians about the deceptions, theological “backflips” and faulty teachings being used, is perfectly in line with the duties of any pastor/church leader protecting the flock.
3. Your statement would imply that we would have to have one-on-one discussions with every person that publicly preached false doctrine before notifying the flock. That is absurd.
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 18th, 2010 at 11:24 am
Hi again David. I didn’t exactly know where to weave this into the thread of conversation. So, I guess here is as good as anywhere. Thank you David for the compliment on the absurdity of my thinking…and I say that in the nicest way. Really!!!
Anyways, I’d like to open this up to everyone. I consider myself to be a follower of Jesus. I try to live my life, in and out of who he is. A focal point of my daily living comes out of…
” It is no longer important that I appear righteous before you or have your good opinion, and I am no longer driven to impress God. Christ lives in me. The life you see me living is not “mine,” but it is lived by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I am not going to go back on that.”
That is a ” reality ” in with I try and orbit my life around. I am involved in 3 ministries, I’m not boasting…just trying to lay the ground work of my faith. I’m involved in the Rainbow Kitchen that feeds the inner cities addicted, homeless…and working poor. I’m involved in First Nations Aboriginal community working with youth at risks. And, lastly a with Carts, a front line ministry on the inner city streets, working with the cities most marginalized. I have seen Jesus profoundly present in all those places. But here lies the crux of my dilemma.
There are some theological theories that I don’t believe in. So, I guess when I read your comments…should I even be calling myself a ” Christian “. Or am I something else.
I wonder what overs think? Interesting that for hundreds of years the church thought slavery was biblical OK, and the world was flat…people were killed for saying different. Just as the world was flat, why can’t we perceive the possibility that there might be curves in our theology.
Grace, Peace…and in the radical scandalous Love of Jesus,
Blessings…Ron Cole+
I suspect the reality is we’ll have to agree to disagree. I’m not going to change your thinking, nor you mine. But, I think ” in Christ ” there is room for the both of us. Maybe not in the church…but in Jesus…
“He was supreme in the beginning and—leading the resurrection parade—he is supreme in the end. From beginning to end he’s there, towering far above everything, everyone. So spacious is he, so roomy, that everything of God finds its proper place in him without crowding. Not only that, but all the broken and dislocated pieces of the universe—people and things, animals and atoms—get properly fixed and fit together in vibrant harmonies, all because of his death, his blood that poured down from the cross.”
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 18th, 2010 at 11:53 am
Ron,
I know I said I was done, but I can’t help but notice my agreement with your statements of faith. Especially:
“It is no longer important that I appear righteous before you or have your good opinion, and I am no longer driven to impress God. Christ lives in me. The life you see me living is not “mine,” but it is lived by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”
I do not find salvation in doctrine, nor should any man. Our salvation does not come from having the purest of beliefs, it comes from having “faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me!” as you so aptly quoted. I’m sure there are many men who intellectually adhere to the most stringent of truths laid out in the Bible, yet are spiritually dead because their faith has not been put in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.
The question however, is how do we respond when people like McLaren introduce false teachings into the Body? That’s where I begin to react in a not-so-pleasant way, because the doors begin to open up for wishy-washy-ness to come in and infiltrate the body of Christ. The only thing I can do at that point, is to show what Scripture says about Christ’s death, his standing as the only road to salvation, the authority of God’s Word, and try to refute those lies with Biblical Truth. The typical response at that point is to stop putting “Christ in a box” and being a “doctrine cop”.
There are some theological theories I don’t believe in as well. For starters, I am struggling to understand limited atonement. Regardless, the point is not that you MUST believe in all of these particular doctrines, otherwise you are not a true believer or “part of the club”. Rather, the point is, when people come and try to undermine the Truth by spreading lies, we must refer back to the Truth to expose those lies. This inevitably begins a discussion about those truths, and people like you get the impression that all people like me care about is believing in doctrines, rules and theological speculations.
You’re right. It’s all about Jesus! But in the face of lies like McLaren’s being poured out, we have to ask what we really believe about Jesus, and either stand up for the Truth or be persuaded by the lies! Unfortunately, that always will appear to people on the outside of the debate (and sadly people inside the debate as well) as “clinging to a doctrine” or “not being open-minded” enough.
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 18th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
What if the “much more” that Jesus had for them (which he said they couldn’t yet bear), also applies to us…?
What if there’s still MUCH more for us to see and experience … and what if imagining that we already have the “full picture” (i.e., that we already see “all truth”), actually *prevents* us from allowing the Spirit to lead us into all truth…?
AISI, this journey is endless … to think that the Truth of God could be grasped while I’m constrained with a limitied/finine mind, is unfathomable. And silly. And who would *want* a God who could be understood by humans…?
I expect this journey to continue to fold, and perhaps even never to end … how exciting! how marvelous! how NON-boring…!
My prayer is that I can and will increase my “bearability” … as I do not want to let what I think I believe get in the way of whatever He has for me to receive …!
Shalom, Dena
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 18th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
LOL! I meant to say, “I expect this journey to continue to UNfold” but if it folds, that’s OK too..!
But – no creasing, mutilating or spindling.
Can’t stand it when the journey spindles…!
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 18th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Can what is left to be unfolded contradict what has already been unfolded? If one moment in Biblical history Christ is said to be it – the only way to experience God and receive his forgiveness – and the next moment in church history, all of that has been washed away as some kind of metaphor for “all paths really lead to God, Christ is just one of them”, then is that really a further unfolding? Or is it a complete contradiction?
Not saying that’s what you’re saying, but I’m just throwing it out there. It is, however, what McLaren is saying since he tells us to find God in the other instead of trying to force them into our religious view. How he reconciles that viewpoint into what Christ says about preaching the Gospel to the nations boggles my mind. Evangelism, which is what we are called to do (which means both speaking the Gospel and living the Gospel), cannot be what Christ described it as, if we are supposed to agree that all other “religions” have the same kind of access to the truth that we do.
Should I anticipate a new definition of “preach the Gospel” forthcoming?
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 18th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Hey David!
You wrote: “Can what is left to be unfolded contradict what has already been unfolded?”
Dena says: Sure, if we see that what was previously stated/understood was merely a tradition of man (egoic perspective) rather than of God (Spirit perspective). For me, this has occurred several times … as if God had to shake me out of what I thought I knew, in order for me to see the “much more.” Very unsettling. “We turn to God when our foundations are shaking, only to discover that it’s God who’s shaking them.” God has throughly mucked up my theology. Wheeeee!
You said: “If one moment in Biblical history Christ is said to be it – the only way to experience God and receive his forgiveness – and the next moment in church history, all of that has been washed away as some kind of metaphor for “all paths really lead to God, Christ is just one of them”, then is that really a further unfolding? Or is it a complete contradiction?”
Dena says: What if we misunderstood what Jesus said/meant? Would you want to know? Would you be willing to inquire of the Spirit? I do notice that the scripture says, “God leads me on pathS (plural) of righteousness.” What if God really does go down ANY path to meet us, and to draw every man to Himself? What if God *meant* that?
You said: Not saying that’s what you’re saying, but I’m just throwing it out there. It is, however, what McLaren is saying since he tells us to find God in the other instead of trying to force them into our religious view.
Dena says: Kudos to Brian for saying so! What *else* do we imagine is enlivening the “other” human, but the very life of God? How do we somehow imagine that there is another Source of Life in the universe BUT God? What do we think is sustaining us “prior” to “the Spirit entering us”? What if that’s more metaphor than ontology?
You said: How he reconciles that viewpoint into what Christ says about preaching the Gospel to the nations boggles my mind. Evangelism, which is what we are called to do (which means both speaking the Gospel and living the Gospel), cannot be what Christ described it as, if we are supposed to agree that all other “religions” have the same kind of access to the truth that we do.
Dena says: I notice that Jesus said that they wouldn’t finish sharing the gospel in all the towns just within Israel, before the Parousia (His return). Do you imagine that there are some towns still left out? (& did you catch how Jesus said that until *all* prophecies about him were fulfilled, we’d remain under the Law?) I see that the “great commission” was fulfilled (& Paul says that it “has been fulfilled” 5 times in his letters!*) … because the “world” spoken of is the land of the Jews … and the warning was of what came down in 70AD. And the gospel is something *other* than “you must accept that Jesus died in your place on the cross, so that you can be reconciled to God and go to heaven, and escape hell.” Because, as I notice in the scriptures, Jesus was declaring folks *saved*, and was telling the disciples to spread the gospel *prior* to His crucifixion and resurrection. So, whatever the gospel/saved meant (at least to Jesus), it doesn’t mean what we think it means, today.
You said: Should I anticipate a new definition of “preach the Gospel” forthcoming?
Dena says: Bingo. Yeah — we need a new gospel all right (the one we think we’ve got has caused enough anguish). Something like, “We are all One. Ours is not a better (or only) way, but ours is just another way.”
Or, “Nobody’s in trouble.”
I see that God leads us on pathS of righteousness …
I do absotively trust God to lead all wo/mankind to God.
And … I notice that all truths are first perceived to be “blasphemies.”
Shalom, Dena
* See here, if you don’t believe me: http://pantelism.com/TheGreatCoMission.htm
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 18th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Ok, I’m suspicious…is David, really Mike Morrell. You know like his alter-ego, his split personality. David you inhabit this space more than Mike, that’s not a bad think. I enjoy the conversation. But, I just have this nagging suspicion, Hmmmmm…
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 19th, 2010 at 11:55 am
Dena,
1. You’re response to my question “Can what is left to be unfolded contradict what has already been unfolded?” was: “Sure, if we see that what was previously stated/understood was merely a tradition of man (egoic perspective) rather than of God (Spirit perspective)”.
Your logic makes sense (i.e. Yes it can appear to contradict, but that’s only because we never really understood in the first place) outside of the scope of this discussion. But I haven’t seen any convincing reasons to point to the fact that we never really understood in the first place, which would mean your efforts to look for further unfoldings is an effort to add/change/delete something that pure, good and holy. Sure the church has mucked up quite a bit (especially in allowing the salvation-by-works doctrines of catholicism to overshadow the Gospel for centuries). But I hope you have good reason to negate the entire teachings of Paul, Peter, Stephen and all of the other men who died for the sake of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, in order to replace it with these new ‘unfoldings’ other than just the novelty of this tripartite view of ‘church’ history.
2. You said “What if we misunderstood what Jesus said/meant? Would you want to know? Would you be willing to inquire of the Spirit? I do notice that the scripture says, “God leads me on pathS (plural) of righteousness.” What if God really does go down ANY path to meet us, and to draw every man to Himself?”
Here you are using the word misunderstand as if it’s some kind of friendly, Jesus-punching-me-on-the-shoulder sort of mishap. But what you are saying he said, and what he actually said, does not fit the recognized definition of a misunderstanding. You are simultaneously changing the meaning of what he said, telling us we should be “ok” with that, because it’s all just one big misunderstanding, and then chiding us because we’re not open-minded enough to accept that in one fell-swoop. You’re masking an entire upheaval of Christianity in some kind of intellectual fog, implying that you can see what has been wrong with Christianity for thousands of years because of your newfound willingness to “let go of boundaries” and a “willingness to inquire of the Spirit”.
Regardless of all of those fancy terms, it’s a new Gospel, and not the one that the men in the NT died for. Plain and simple.
3. In response to my statement about McLaren telling us to find God in the other instead of trying to force them into the view of Christ as the ONLY Savior, you said: “Kudos to Brian for saying so! What *else* do we imagine is enlivening the “other” human, but the very life of God? How do we somehow imagine that there is another Source of Life in the universe BUT God? What do we think is sustaining us “prior” to “the Spirit entering us”? What if that’s more metaphor than ontology?
You’re equating salvation with life. God sustains all creatures (Job 12:10, Psalm 104:10-14). He also gives them free will (within the inexplicable relationship of his own sovereignty: Deuteronomy 30:15, Romans 8:28) That said, regardless of whether a human being chooses to worship, recognize or even acknowledge Him or not, doesn’t preclude that human being’s ability to exist. Where in the world did that logic come from? Furthermore, what is this talk about “enlivening the other”? I have a feeling you are using purposefully ambiguous words. God sustains all things – both his children, and those who reject him. Can you not recall the hundreds, if not thousands, of references to the enemies of God in the Bible. Were they not somehow sustained regardless of their faith position?
I gather you will be discussing the loaded term “enlivening” in your response?
4. I said: “Evangelism, which is what we are called to do (which means both speaking the Gospel and living the Gospel), cannot be what Christ described it as, if we are supposed to agree that all other ‘religions’ have the same kind of access to the truth that we do.
Your response was twofold. First made the point that the Great Commission has been fulfilled. This is a common argument against preaching the Gospel, founded in a particularly liberal interpretation of Mark 16:20, Colossians 1:23 and Romans 16:26 and a few others. Essentially the argument goes something like this. The apostles were writing that the Gospels were being preached “everywhere”, “to all creatures” and “to all nations” therefore the work is done. This is a bit of some tricky logic because it ignores the fact that in the ensuing passages, those very same apostles discuss the further work they were doing to preach the Gospels! But let’s suppose that the true intention of the Gospel and Epistle writers WAS to indicate that the work was completed (which is such a long shot, and a very silly proposition), how does that possibly mean that the Gospel has changed from something other than Jesus Christ being the only way to salvation?
Which leads into your second point: That the Gospel is not just believing in Christ, which you support by saying that Jesus declared people saved before He died, so therefore the Gospel cannot just be be “believe in Jesus’ death and resurrection for the forgiveness of your sins”. Again, this is intellectual backflippery. You are saying that the Gospel that was clearly preached in the NT in hundreds of places by the Apostles is negated because Christ announced that a few people would enter the Kingdom of God prior to His death. First and foremost, He is God. He can declare people to be righteous, saved or whatever whenever He wishes, just as God can choose Elijah to never meet death. Furthermore, in the midst of the Law being simultaneously overthrown and made complete in Christ, I would imagine that people whose lives overlapped that time period could enter the kingdom of God either by fulfilling the Law or believing in Christ as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. I don’t know how it all works, and my speculations are just speculation, but your argument does not hold muster. I wish Spock existed, because I’d invite him to this conversation and ask him to rate your logic. Especially considering:
“Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel, which I preached unto you, which ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved,… For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures.” 1 Corinthians 15:1-4
5. You said: “Yeah — we need a new gospel all right (the one we think we’ve got has caused enough anguish). Something like, “We are all One. Ours is not a better (or only) way, but ours is just another way.”
This is exactly why Christians are paying such close attention to this movement, and to folks like Brian McLaren. Because underneath all of the pondering, speculating and paradigm-shifting, what you’ve just said is at the heart of everything. “We need a new Gospel. We are all One, ours is not a better way, but ours is just another way.” You have indeed revealed that you are a friend of the world and no friend of Christ’s.
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” Galatians 1:9″.
David
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 19th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Also, I am not Mike Morell.
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 19th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Hey again, David.
Yeah, I knew you werern’t Mike. He wouldn’t be asking me these questions.
As for answering them, and fully engaging in this conversation, I’m unable to do so as deeply as I’d like (this is right up my alley!) … as I’ve got just 2 weeks to prepare for an art show (yikes!). I find that I’m addicted to my own high levels of adrenaline in order to produce art … so I seem compelled to torment myself with procrastination (my way of risk-taking — fewer casualties than with sky-diving).
So! I’ll have to keept this brief …
1. I do not negate the scriptures, nor anyone who wrote them. I seek to understand them from their original intent. I desire for the Spirit to lead me into all truth, and to show me the meaning of all things, including the scriptures. I do not believe that I can get the real meaning if I insist upon a Western/literal/surface interpretation. YMMV.
2. I no longer believe that Christianity was Jesus’ intent. I see all religions as manmade. I see that they do indeed “bind” us. I see that the “Christian life” (which Jesus never mentions) actually gets in the way of us experiencing the Abundant Life (which He came to show/give us). I believe that part of what Jesus came to set us free from, is religion … as well as anything else that overtly or covertly enslaves us. Mostly, I see that He came to set us free from the lies we believe (most of which we don’t realize are lies). I want truth at all cost. And it has been costly. Again, YMMV.
3. Yes, I equate salvation with life. I see that’s the point. Being an “enemy” of God is the human/egoic perspective — not the perspective of God. I see that Paul also endorses this opinion, “you were enemies of God in your minds.” I believe we need our minds renewed, to think as God thinks (for we *have* the Mind of Christ – we just prefer to employ the ego for our thinking) … and we also need eyes to see, and years to hear.
I’m not trying to be ambiguous … ’tis a waste of time. I’m a busy mom with 8 kids that I unschool at home … I’m an artist with a series of looming deadlines … I blog prolifically and daily … I make time to chase my husband … I have a large house to maintain … I get a couple hundred emails per day … I have several discussion lists I attempt to keep up with. I have no time to be obscure in my writing — I mean to convey my thoughts with clarity.
As for “enlivened” … I no longer believe that when the Spirit “comes into us” that it’s a literal phrase … it’s not as if I didn’t have the Spirit in me before — it’s that I wasn’t AWARE of the Spirit in me before. What else do I think I am, but Spirit? There is only One Spirit … God manifests in all that is. Yes, this is Panentheism (not to be confused with pantheism, for God is *more* than all we see). In Him we live and move and have our being … we are ALL God’s offspring. Some are aware/awake to this reality, and some are unaware/unawake to this reality. We can all awaken, and discover who God really is, and thus who we really are. And to finally realize that we (all humans) are One. Knowing that would change everything — but only everything…!
(see what happens once I start engaging … I can’t stop, LOL!)
4. I sent you a link. It’s posted above. Did you read it? I don’t have time to rehash it here… it’s clear, and concise, and uses all manner of scripture references to connect the dots. If you don’t choose to read it, that’s fine … but I won’t spoon feed it here. I’m already mama to many (8 IS enough)…! http://pantelism.com/TheGreatCoMission.htm There it is again — it’s well worth the read (& there’re other articles on that site as well … if you’re so inclined to explore).
5. If Christianity has long been preaching “another gospel” would you want to know….?
It’s entirely above your pay-grade to determine whether I, or Brian, or Mike, or anyone else, is a friend of Christ’s. As Jesus said to Peter, “What’s that to you? You follow Me.”
IF you’re truly curious about what I believe and why (vs. just wanting to peg/label/dismiss me), I invite you to peruse my blog … there’s no shortage of “amunition” there, if you want to use something I say against me. You could surprise yourself by discovering that I’m really a nice person, who’s a lot of fun to know. I’ve certainly enjoyed discovering this about me…!
http://shalomdena.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-i-said-in-baytown-i-think.html Starting with that post (and continuing in the next 3), I unpack what I shared at a conference recently, in Texas. If you make it through those, you can reward yourself with the following blog post — which includes a video of my husband and I on the “Mike and Juliet” show, in NYC … sharing about how God healed our sex life, and our marriage. It’s fun. And contagious.
Shalom, Dena
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 19th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
Bless your heart, Mike, for braving these icy cold waters… eloquently. These reactions to McLaren’s latest book point out the fact that this “conversation” is going to continue to be a heated one.
Dena, you are on the money with your train of thought.
David, Mark 12:28-31 says One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’There is no commandment greater than these.”… Jesus continually reveals himself in spite of Brian’s book or because of it.
His blessings to all…
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 20th, 2010 at 10:37 am
So does McClaren teach in his new book that we’re already living in the new heavens and the new earth, or is this hyperpreterism discussion offtopic?
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 20th, 2010 at 10:49 am
I know we tend to apply ‘hyper’ to the things we don’t like (I do it too)…Brian actually critiques all of our current categories for eschatology, including preterism. He then examines Parousia in it’s more literal sense – the presence of Christ – rather than the unbiblical term ’second coming.’ And he does, indeed, reexamine the apocalyptic depictions of the new heavens and earth, particularly in Isaiah, where the new earth is describes as a place where people live long lives and have good jobs – an amazing world, but not some platonic ideal where people never die.
I don’t want to put words in Brian’s mouth, but his depiction of ‘participatory eschatology’ reminds me of my friend Kevin Beck’s, which he outlines in This Book Will Change Your World, which is a free eBook! I’d be very interested in what you think about it actually.
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 20th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Excellent perspective, Mike … in fact, I find it hyper-good…!
Shalom & Namaste ~
Dena
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 20th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Mary — your voice is like a refreshing drink of cool water … may it overflow and slosh on all by-standers … may we become soggy with such liquid love …!
And may we all finally, *Finally!* realize that Love is far more powerful than fear could ever pretend to be…!
Shalom & Namaste ~
Dena
P.S. Mary — do you share your thoughts elsewhere online…?
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 21st, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Dena — my bloggging world is small- Transmillennial- Hi Kevin!, Post-Christian, Zoecarnate . I suppose I’ll be stopping by http://shalomdena.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-i-said-in-baytown-i-think.html; too !
PS- I am an artist/creative as well … I consider God’s great gift of the creative life an act of grace.
Blessings
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 21st, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Ha! Your world is my world!
Why am I not surprised…?
Yes, we must schmooze …!
Will you be attending the Presence conference in Little Rock this year…? I canNOT wait!!! Dragging as many of our 8 kids as we can this year … our 3rd hear. I’m a wide-eyed-in-wonder-woman!
(likely with latent super-powers…)
Do you have images of your art online?
Mine are here: serendipitiesbbydena.blogspot.com
(sorry to take over your blog-post, Mike … we gotta schmooze and connect where we can)
You may now return to your discussion of Brian and his Brilliant Bestowals…!
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 21st, 2010 at 2:12 pm
I meant third *year*. But hear works, too.
Reminds me of something I stumbled upon this morning:
“Stillness is the language God speaks, and everything else is a bad translation.”
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate
February 22nd, 2010 at 2:19 pm
I swore I was done posting on this blog, but I found this on Mark Dever’s review of ANKoC and it applies particularly well to Ted’s comment (and Ira’s addition):
“McLaren mentions how Martin Luther felt (xii), presenting Luther’s need to break through to a new paradigm as akin to the situation Christians today face. Yet while Martin Luther certainly did grieve over what he saw happening with Tetzel and indulgences, he was fundamentally motivated by a positive certainty as a result of his biblical studies—that our justification is by God’s grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. It was this positive assertion that was at the heart of the Protestant paradigm shift, nothing less. It was motivated neither by simple dissatisfaction with the status quo (though that was certainly present) nor by optimism for a different and better possible future (though that too was there). Rather there was a certainty of God’s Word to us in Christ that both demolished old systems and led to the re-erecting of still older, New Testament ones.”
This comment was originally posted on zoecarnate