The Next-Wave Ezine: Issue #134

current issue index




next-wave |  about |  bookstore |  archived |  advertise |  charlie wear's notes |  links February 2010
On the McLaren Nay-sayers
 
 

Brian McLarenIt’s a new year; A New Kind of Christianity is out. I highly recommend it; it’s a fantastically thought-provoking book. Not everyone would agree, though – which is perfectly fine. Iron sharpening iron and all that. But it’s not just content-disagreement; it’s becoming increasingly fashionable to bash Brian McLaren these days. This has been the case for years actually in certain quarters, but in the last few months it’s become common for folks who might’be happily displayed a ‘Friend of Emergent’ badge on their blog a couple of years ago – folks for whom Emergent has become either too ‘establishment’ or (more common) too ‘liberal.’ I deliberately haven’t posted at all on the latest spate of ‘breaking up with emergent’ posts here because, frankly, they depress the hell out of me. But you can find a roundup of the points and counter-points here on my Delicious bookmarks. At the end of the day, I think some valid critiques have been raised, for sure, but the overall tenor of dismissal is rather debilitating, to be honest. I can’t summarize it any better than Brother Maynard has here:

The other notable point is a set of changes in what the emerging church is, how it’s defined, who’s a part of it, who still uses the term, and a plethora of other notes. Being the end of a decade, people are also tending to look farther back and farther ahead as well. On this topic, I’m saddened that within the emerging church, people who shared a pulpit at the beginning of the decade won’t share more than the time of day at the end of the decade. Though some of them will spend some time in criticism. You know who you are.

Thankfully I’ve never been through a divorce – as a child or a husband. But my parents did fight alot during one particularly painful season, and this feels identical to me. This isn’t like those big, national ‘pajamas media’ brawls writ large, some Perez Hilton vs. Matt Drudge kind’ve affair. This is like family fighting family, civil war type stuff. It saddens me, it sickens me, it raises my blood pressure and makes me go out and ROM.

So: Bringing this back to Brian. I suppose it’s inevitable that, when you’re deemed the ‘Papa’ of something as amorphous and volatile as the emergent movement, eventually your spiritual children are going to have daddy issues and take out their frustrations on dear ‘ol dad. On the other hand, some of the loudest friends-turned-critics seem to be older men of his own generation, so maybe ’sibling rivalry’ would be closer to the truth. Nonetheless, I sense a growing sense of more-orthodox-than-thou former emergers who are reacting to what they’re deeming hyper-modernity and/or heresy and/or cheap marketing ploys.

Let’s go with this last one – Scot McKnight says that Brian’s two-question ‘Are You A Fundamentalist?’ quiz shuts down the conversation before it begins; Bill Kinnon says this quiz is fundamentalist of Brian himself, and – if jacket copy can believed – means that Brian’s setting himself up to be a deity.

Excuse me? Are we talking about the same man here? Let’s see if we can find another way to narrate this – one more in line with Philippians 4:8 and 1 Corinthians 13 – you know, believing all things, hoping all things, focusing on what’s pure, righteous, of good report, et cetera.

Brian, for all his lack of formal theological education, is a deep thinker and natural teacher. He reads and travels widely, combining the insights of theology, spirituality, sociology, anthropology, futures work, and the like – synthesizing it in a way that some still find too wordy, but is nonetheless light-years easier to read than his primary source material. Beyond being a bright guy, he’s an empathetic soul – he listens deeply to folks in Africa and Latin America and the Middle East who don’t have a voice, as well as marginalized people within our own borders (LGBT folks, Muslims, etc…). He often speaks for them to religious and political power. The religious power structures in particular don’t like it because while the name of Jesus is upon his lips, they’ve convinced he’s getting Jesus’ Gospel wrong. And so the mud-slinging begins. A New Kind of Christianity

I am not saying, as some have recently suggested, that anyone who disagrees with Brian about the aforementioned areas of theology, spirituality, politics, etc., is automatically a mud-slinger; what I am saying is a sizable number of critics are indeed engaging in mud-slinging behavior. Brian has for years endured the worst kinds of insults – to his face and in print, even directed toward his own family, because he dare question the status quo. And being an empathetic man, he takes critiques seriously, even as he’s consistently death with such withering slander with Christ-like character (as Frank Viola notes). I am not linking the recent blog-critiques with the following extreme examples, but imagine for a moment that someone – indeed many someones – are calling you these things:

A true son of Lucifer

A Satanic author

A f*cking idiot

…and I’m deliberately leaving some of the worst ones out.

Now, imagine you’ve been hearing people say stuff like that to you for years, and you have a new book coming out where you’ll be speaking plainer than ever, shooting straight from the hip, real John 16:25 type stuff. And so you want to give your potential readers a fair warning: If you don’t approach theology and spirituality with a certain playfulness, a certain curiosity, a certain winsomeness – then my newest book might not be for you!

I think that’s fair enough. It need not be read as trying to shut down conversation, bur rather that the conversation itself is wising up, maturing. Perhaps some of us emergers, in our late 1990s youth, said “We can change the world through conversation! Come one, come all!” And that worked for us, for a few years. But starting around early 2005 or so, folks who weren’t conversing with curiosity, open-endedness, et al, began strong-arming themselves in and crying “Fire!” And emergentno.com and other sites were born, making decrying such conversations a full-time gig. From my vantage point, Brian is now doing what many wish Obama would do: Grow a pair and say “You know, my message isn’t for everybody. I’ve been very diplomatic for years, but that hasn’t gotten me very far with those who continue to loathe me and my message. So now I’m going to speak plainly to those who like these kinds of conversations, which can still be all kinds of people. Except for those who, by general disposition, are inclined to (yes) ask “Is it acceptable to my religious/ideological community or belief system?” before they ask “Is it possibly true, valuable, and worth exploring?”

Folks who fit into the first category should have their wishes to remain fundamentalists respected. And we need to realize there are siblings in Christ who proudly self-identify as fundamentalists. God bless them and their understandings of Christ’s work in the world – I mean this sincerely.

Brians’ quiz – which I think he meant tongue-in-cheek, by the way – is only a fair warning, doubly fair when including the context of Seth Godin’s short film on fundamentalism (which Scot sadly omitted from his initial posting on the quiz – intentionally or not). And if I understand how this all unfolded correctly, Brian’s idea for the quiz was suggested by Mike Todd’s posting on Seth’s fundamentalism clip, where Mike poses the million-dollar question:

When it comes to matters of faith, do we embrace questions in order to grow and learn, or do we first screen them through our rigid, existing lens in order to eliminate the ones that don’t fit our concrete, bounded structure?

This question is not meant to piss on orthodoxy(ies), or the wisdom of our spiritual forbears. But it’s about remaining open to the Light and leading of the Holy Spirit’s forward-pull into our future, which many of us see as the fullness of New Covenant living in God’s ecology. We can’t pass through this gate of insight without our curiosity and winsomeness intact and functioning healthily.

I understand the critique that Brian is generous to all orthodoxies but the one he comes from – evangelicalism and fundamentalist Christianity. He’s naturally the most trepidations of what he himself has lived through, and he’s naturally the most gracious and hopeful toward those forms of Christian faith that he’s discovered in his later years as a friendly outsider. Thus, Brian’s Christology, soteriology, hermeneutics, modes of discipleship, etc., might seem foreign to (or even hostile to) evangelicalism (or, some might imagine, a complete dismemberment of Christianity itself) – but in reality there are few original components to Brian’s new vision of Christian faith – which is why Brian himself is highly ambivalent to calling this ‘new’ at all.

He’s drawing from the deep and ancient wisdom of East Orthodox churches, Quakers and Anabaptists, mainline and liberation theologies, Catholic spirituality and more. He’s not drinking from these wells indiscriminately; what is new and original is his fresh synthesis of what he (and many of us) see as the best and most fruit-bearing dimensions of each, as we pray, worship, read Scripture and act together as learning communities. This doesn’t mean that everyone who reads ‘the story’ differently is a reverse-heretic in some new emergent papacy, but it does mean that increasing faith-diversification is undeniably the future. Will new ‘c’atholic churches be able to contain the diversity that’s already present in the Body of Christ, which will only continue to flourish as we grow toward the 22nd century? I hope so – we need all hands on deck to answer the call of the ‘Great Work’ of our time – to be Trees of Life for the healing of hatred, violence, and shattered lives and eco-systems. I know that our ‘Gospel’ is important and worth debating over – but please, let’s all sides do this in a respectful manner, not ad hominem, and expect the best of each other’s sincerity, lives, and theologies.

I hope that Brian never becomes impervious to his critics. I hope that he’s able to strain through the metric tons of crapola being dumped his way right now to pick out an occasional pearl, like Yeah, I suppose that fundamentalism quiz could have been interpreted as polarizing, or I need to have more patience with brothers and sisters who still find much life in the institutions and beliefs that I, for reasons of my own, have moved beyond. I pray that the some of the hurtful words being directed toward a guy who’s already had a ton of hurtful words thrown his way don’t forever isolate him from hearing genuine loving disagreement.

But to my mind, while Brian is not above critique in his theology or actions, at the end of the day I see a man sincerely following Jesus – like Jesus, comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable. And like Jesus, having Hosannas shouted his way on Sunday, and being crucified on Friday. Jesus ‘descended into hell,’ according to the ancient creed. Like the much-more-recent Facebook group states, I’d rather be in hell with Brian than strumming harps with the bulk of his staunchest nay-sayers.

May all of us – missional and emergent, evangelical and mainline, Catholic and Pentecostal, gay and straight, deconstructionist and Radically Orthodox – fling ourselves upon the Throne of Grace and mercies of the Father, Son, and Spirit, one God, who alone saves and restores.

Amen?

*****

And in the midst of this liminal opportunity for growth in grace and mutual forbearance in this matters where so many obviously disagree, I look forward to reading and reviewing A New Kind of Christianity with the whole community of faith. Beyond the posts you’ll find amply linked to above, here are a few that I’ve found helpful:

Going to Hell with McLaren…or at least to renew an institution. Which is worse? – Dave Wainscott

A New Kind of Christianity Intro by Matt Nightingale

Book Review: A New Kind of Christianity by Bill Nieporte

A New Kind of Christianity by Pam Hoegweide

A New Kind of Blogging My Notes on A New Kind of Christianity by Dan Rustad

Questions…

Brian McLaren on the Overarching Storyline of the Bible

Porpoise Diving Life interview by Bill Dahl

Explore the Spirit interview with Brian

and finally: You will find a variety of reviews, of all persuasions, on the ViralBloggers.com post for A New Kind of Christianity.


Mike Morell is a self-proclaimed friend of God, a wannabe mystic and prophet, husband and father, lover and friend. He lives in the Southeast U.S. of A. with his wife Jasmin and little girl, Jubilee Grace.

 


RECENT COMMENTS


Thanks for this article. I have read often the critiques, both negative and supportive, of Brian McLaren. The point I would make is about the statement you make, "Brian, for all his lack of formal theological education, is a deep thinker and natural teacher."

"Formal theological education" is not that important to me, never has been, but with that being said, just because he is a good communicator doesn't make him a natural teacher or a deep thinker. A lot of what I have read of his has really been rather shallow. I don't mean this as a personal attack, just an observation. The depths that he tries to plumb seem to be out of his reach at times, so he throws his hands in the air and says, "I don't want to be dogmatic" and then throws down the gauntlet and challenges the rest of us to be this unsure. The fact that he seems unwilling at times to give a definite answer shows that he really is not a deep thinker, but rather, a lazy thinker. I love him and appreciate the conversation and dialogue he has opened up, but give props where props are due and hold accountable when necessary.


I am not certain how anyone can make light of "Going to Hell with Brian McLaren" when we realize the evangelical task before us. Seems contrary to the nature of Christ and the Church to do so.

Anyhoo, I am deeply disappointed (though not remotely surprised) at this new text from Pastor McLaren. A New Kind of Christianity isn't what it advertises. It isn't new. It is simply drummed up old, reductionist theological modernism that indwelt (and killed) many mainline denominations of the early 20th Century. In this text Pastor McLaren continually pivots back to rehashing an old point that has been done away with.

Was anyone truly surprised when, after his "self-imposed" request to stop talking about homosexuality for 5 years that he comes out with permissibility in homosexual relationships? I wasn't. The writing was all over the wall (so to speak) in a Generous Orthodoxy (which was neither generous nor awfully orthodox.)

This new text simply puts the final nail in the coffin at what the Emergent leadership has been trying to get at all these years. They began their efforts by attempting to point out that we need to contextualize (rightly imho) the missional imperative of the Church to evangelize unchurched people. The Emergent leadership was great about their focus. Now Emergent has become some random thing that is an excuse not to evangelize. Most significantly when we read Pastor McLaren's account in "A New Kind of Christianity" we see that evangelism isn't necessary in his theology since he is an inclusivist. Of course it also shows the insolvency of the Emergent movement. Instead of offering a genuinely authentic and innovative theological contribution in light of post-foundationalism it has simply defaulted to elitist modernist theology of a bygone era.

I also don't understand rambling pieces of defense like this article. Pastor McLaren is a contemplative thinker, and I absolutely appreciate his candor, but in attempting to recover a justifiable Christian orthopraxy (right practice) he has violated Christian orthodoxy (right belief) across the board. While we need both...we need both. You can't have corrupt orthodoxy (like in Pastor McLaren's book) to get to a better orthopraxy.

We need a robust belief to have a robust practice.

Peace, love, and keep Jesus First PreachinJesus


Hi Bill,

I'll admit I was tired (physically and emotionally) when I wrote this initial piece, but what I was drawing from was your saying

"Brian's book tells us immediately that Brian best represents those of us who question the institutional church. A little "all your leadership are belong to me" perhaps - at least for those of us who dare question the present state of the church. Now, perhaps it's just marketing hyperbole. Maybe Brian really doesn't think he's God's answer to the present state of the church...Or God's ten answers that is."

As God's mouthpiece - standing for God, in the place of God - Brian would be functioning like 'the angel of the Lord' in many a biblical passage - representing God-on-earth. Of course I don't think you believe that Brian is claiming to ontologically be God. A better summary on my part would have been that you were wondering if Brian was setting himself up as the Pope of All Things Emergent.


Mike, But one comment, where did I ever say Brian was setting himself up "as a diety." I would respectively ask you to change that or cite what I actually wrote.


My issue isn't with Brian McLaren as I sort of enjoy some of his stuff, although the new book just seems to me, although I've not read it, on the whole, to be more of the same. My issue with the Emerging Church stems from the fact that, in a lot of circles, the Holy Spirit seems missing. It's all about being trendy and provocative and sipping coffee while talking about how things need to change...but it stops there. The movement seems to have lost all power to do. It's all books books and more books about what Christianity should look like and an open embrace of liberal politics. I don't have the badge on my blog, although I did have it on one in the past, but I am a friend of this Emergent thing. And it's about time that some action be put with the words. And that can only happen if the Holy Spirit is allowed to reclaim His place in the Godhead as equal to Jesus and the Father.


The amazing and sad thing to me is how long it has taken for some supposed Evangelicals to recognize the age-old heretical blather of Brian McLaren. His inability to embrace the integrity and inspiration of Scriptures, and his complete lack of appreciation for the work of Christ on the cross are only part of the sinking sand he plays in. You could walk him through one chapter of Paul's writing (any chapter) and destroy most of what he teaches. He obviosuly hates actual analysis of a body of Scripture. We are about ten years from reaching every language and people group on the planet. For that you can thank the visionaries, pioneers and prayer warriors who embraced the hermeneutic and theology McLaren eschews. Ask the 100 million Evangelicals in China if they think Brian's ideas come from their Savior. Ditto the Christians in Africa-45% of the population. His nonPauline gospel would guarantee the Church never fulfilled the Great Commision. Next!!!


Copyright © 2010 Next-Wave Ezine.
All rights reserved.


Next-Wave Ezine - Issue #134
Editorial
 
Issue Credits
 
 
Cover Story

A Recovering Pharisee
 
 
Featured Article: At the Top
Life Without Judgment
 
 
Featured Article: Photo Essay
Humbling
 
 
From the Publisher
Hearing from God... at Verge
 
 
Church Culture
A State of the Union for the Church: On the Other Side of the Ashes
 
 
Emerging Church
On the McLaren Nay-sayers
 
Wheaton College and Positive Things About the Emerging Church
 
To Be Content
 
 
Theology
God Won't Yell
 
 
Spirituality
Reclaiming a Narrative of Hope
 
 
Leadership
Free for All: A Leap Forward in Training Leaders
 
 
Real Life
Responding to Critics: The contrast of Perry Noble and Brian Mclaren