via vimeo.com
I would be interested in your thoughts about this video regarding Brian McLaren. Please listen to it before responding. I am in Belfast right now, so I might not be able to respond immediately, but would be very interested in your input… Peace!
I think the first and second question are handled well and insightful and the last question on ‘Universalism, Hell’ etc…was fumbled.
But, I think the discussion should of been longer, this is where the whole attempt that ‘Q’ does to limit the time frame of the speakers (18 minutes or less) to force thinkers and speakers to give the heart of the matter…is inadequate for many topics.
I think Brian’s insight is so true that…many people forget life is richer when we are open to listen to what ‘people have to say’ vs limiting incoming voices based on ‘what they believe’.
I also find it fascinating that in today’s religious world many conservative voices are demanding Islam to do the hard work of self critique in regards to human rights, violence, etc…yet, when Christians within the fold do that for Christianity…those same voices shout “HERTIC”! We can’t ask of others, what we wont do ourselves.
I find it interesting that he says he used to be on the exclusivistic side and he knows that position well but now that he is outside of that paradigm he is talking another language (or at least trying to). My little brain probably isn’t following all of this very well and have not read any of his books but from the video this part is what stood out to me most and kind of bothered me most. It just seems dangerous to think you are able to think completely differently than well a whole lot of other people, and he used that kind of as his excuse to not really answer the questions and remain quite ambiguous.
Hi Rob
A fuller response from Scot McKnight is here: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/march/3.59.html I agree with the criticism.
The thing with McLaren is that he is mainly a creative writer, former pastor, and not a theologian and much less a biblical scholar. Yet he tends to make sweeping general statements about theology, church history and the Scriptures that run counter to Evangelical thinking in important ways. I use “Evangelical” as JI Packer does, as referring to mainstream Christianity from the apostolic Age until today, and, therefore, not the property of any one tradition.
His insistence on the Greek vs. Hebrew thought is just bogus, and fails to come to terms with the fact that second temple Judaism was highly Hellenized, especially around Galilee, where Jesus ministered. There is no pure Hebrew thought in the first century against which a bad, corrupted, Platonic Greek thought can be contrasted.
McLaren´s reading of church history is also flawed. You may have read my throughts and my assessment of Christemdoms (not one but several!) and know I have a far more positive view of this period. McLaren is too reactionary, as Chesterton would say, too close to the church he is trying to “emerge” from to be fair. Fairness requires us to be either inside, or far away enough to see her as a pagan would. I for one stand squarely inside, in humble continuity with the communion of saints of all ages, aware of the sins of my fathers and mothers as well as my own, but even more of Jesus´ uninterrupted work of building His church, a work which is never defeated by the unfaithfulness of some Christians in all perdiods.
McLaren may not be aware of the degree to which his chosen narrative is shaped by secular contemporary thought: The mantras of liberal western intelligentsia are all there, but lacking the internal coherence of the best representative examples of that intelligentsia…
I’ve always viewed the question of whether Brian (or whatever other person we want to disagree with) is a heretic to be an unhelpful question. Not only that, it is usually not about whether one lies withing historic orthodoxy, but a specific branch’s orthodoxy.
The assumption underlying it is that if one is incorrect on one point, they are unworthy of being listened to on any point. In this regard, I appreciate the irony in what McLaren brings up about wanting to talk about atrocities happening in the world and instead being inquisited about his views on atonement. It cuts back against this assumption and is realistic in that one can be wrong on one subject but be incredibly helpful on another.
In a sense, I also appreciate his statement on syncretism, because in a sense, I think I affirm that none of us have an un-syncretistic theology. To me that’s the need to be a part of a community that is more expansive than my cultural assumptions – to be shown the ways in which my theology is also syncretistic.
I’ll share more later Andrew (in the Belfast airport), but I want to say thanks for the thoughtful response.
Hey Rob,
Thanks for posting this. I have never been a fan of Brian McClaren, but I found myself being somewhat sympathetic to him–at least at the beginning of the video. I just don’t like the way in which he presents his concerns. McClaren, as he said the same when he spoke at Fuller, assumes that everything in Christianity is Platonic, and that’s its problem. This seems as kind of a scapegoat way of dealing with problems in Christianity. I am sympathetic to his concerns, but his explication of his concerns I find quite poor. His response to the question of universalism was also very limited. He comes at universalism from a humanistic and anthropological starting point instead of a theological one. In response to his Platonic claims, he focuses too much on the “now” and not the after. I don’t see how scripture teaches that salvation, and the possibility of universalism for that matter, have to do with finding the image of God in one another–indeed, the image of God itself is quite a debated issue. And not once, in his discussion of universalism, does he mention salvation through Christ alone; he lets culture dictate his understanding of theological issues. His emphasis upon narrative is also quite frustrating to me. For McClaren, everyone has a narrative that governs the way they understand the world, Christianity, etc. This line of thinking is far too subjective. Did the Nazi’s not have a narrative too? How is one supposed to know who’s narrative is functionally correct? I want to say to Brian McClaren that the gospel is not simply about harmony on earth–although that may be part of it–it is much bigger than that, and the governing of harmony, healing, and reconciliation is determined by human participation only in so far as God has ordained it–humans do not in and of themselves lead themselves to salvation.
Now this is a big critique. I do, as said before, have sympathies with him. I just wish he wouldn’t make sweeping theological claims because it shows the holes in his argument. Yes, things in Christianity need to change, but his method need not be the way to do it. He rejects charges of syncretism, but if he continues to let culture dictate his understanding of scripture and the Church, I see no way to avoid it. Having said all of this, I DO NOT think Brian McClaren is a heretic–he’s just someone trying to figure out how to best serve the Lord.