Jeff has been beating the emerging church like a pinata. Today, he linked to this excellent piece at Thinklings, where Brian McLaren was asked "Do you personally believe that all sexual activity between two persons of the same gender is always a sin?" McLaren gives a lengthy reply which never answers the question. Not surprising. Says Thinklings:
But that doesn’t change the basic issues of right and wrong, and he seems to deliberately want to confuse honest struggle over how to handle the details of pastoring with the dishonest effort to turn the line between the black and white of Biblical truth into a puddle of gray.
I’m at the point where I’ve had it with McLaren. Not that I was ever a huge fan, but I was certainly willing to listen. There are areas where we need to re-think the way we act as the Church of Jesus Christ.
I think in the world of politics, for example, that issues like globalization, the blight of government dependency, the growing unncessary complexity of law, and confrontations with terrorists have made us re-examine how the civil government ought to be organized.
Similarly, the church needs to look at how it is responding to the world. In America, this means we need to take a serious look at how the church responds to American problems. How do we respond to: material prosperity? Patriotism infiltrating the church? The disconnectedness of family, work, and social spheres? The commercialization of everything? Sundays dominated by football instead of worship?
These are serious questions. Maybe McLaren is committed to answering them. But if he won’t answer basic questions, then he can’t be trusted with complex ones. He’s only interested in speaking words of rebuke to people that aren’t in the room (like the GOD HATES FAGS crowd. Anybody here guessing that McLaren is on their blogroll? Think they’re waiting to hear what he has to say before making up their minds? Didn’t think so).
And when he does speak, his fawning efforts at humility can only be said to have innoculated him against the real thing. He always makes sure to say how wrong he might be, but never about anything in particular. He’s like the guy who starts off everything he tells you with, “Honestly, . . .” I don’t trust that guy. And I don’t trust McLaren. [emphasis added]
Neither do I. Dodging the important questions is par for the course for McLaren. A fine example may be found in A New Kind of Christian, where McLaren addresses the question about whether non-Christians go to Heaven. McLaren's response? "It's none of your business who gets into Heaven." [read: 'yes']
Friday, February 03, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
While I can't speak for McClaren (and I am very fond of him), I think the sentiment in regards to "it's none of my business who gets into heaven" is a statement that is rooted in the fact that so many Christians boil down the gospel to the point of are you going to heaven or hell, which honestly was a question that Jesus was not addressing. Jesus' primary concern was the Kingdom of God.
I have seen Christians use this question of heaven or hell (and I believe in both, and conversion, etc...) to beat down other people who don't think like them. Jesus' greatest commandment was love God and neighbor. He said that how we love each other will prove to the world that we are his followers, not badgering people on whether they're going to heaven or not.
I'm sorry to go off on this, and I don't want you to think I take heaven and hell lightly, but I have a much different take on heaven and hell than most (and it might line up more with McClaren).
I'm not going to go off anymore, I've gotta shut up now. I asked McClaren about that blog post at the Baltimore Emergent Cohort last Monday, to which he responded that 1) He wasn't even posting it as a blog for Leadership Journal. 2) He did not title the blog post what he did. 3) It was about pastoral responses to complex situation.
He still did not answer the question. Although I know he has certain perspectives on certainty and their relationship to theological discourse, but at the same time what if he gave his position? Either way I think people would still be firing.
I say this because this man has been used to save me back into the church. Quite honestly if it wasn't for him I wouldn't want anything to do with Christianity. There are many others who have testified the same.
In the beginning years of my ministry, I tiptoed through a namby-pamby stage where I didn't want to offend others by taking a stand or voicing my true position. Finally I discovered it was an illusion. Somehow, somewhere, somebody was going to be ticked by something I said or did. Frank A. Clark's quote has stuck with me over the years, "Why not upset the apple cart? If you don't, the apples will rot anyway."
Maybe McLaren can benefit by another Clark quote: "There is nothing that can help you understand your beliefs more than trying to explain them to an inquisitor."
While I can't speak for McClaren (and I am very fond of him), I think the sentiment in regards to "it's none of my business who gets into heaven" is a statement that is rooted in the fact that so many Christians boil down the gospel to the point of are you going to heaven or hell, which honestly was a question that Jesus was not addressing. Jesus' primary concern was the Kingdom of God.
I have seen Christians use this question of heaven or hell (and I believe in both, and conversion, etc...) to beat down other people who don't think like them. Jesus' greatest commandment was love God and neighbor. He said that how we love each other will prove to the world that we are his followers, not badgering people on whether they're going to heaven or not.
I'd say that this is an important question because (a) it would really suck to be in Hell and (b) so much theology flows out of the answer to this question.
Do we spread the Gospel message? If everyone goes to Heaven, then there really isn't a point. Why did Jesus have to die on th cross? If everyone goes to Heaven, then he died for nothing. Are other religions true? If "no one comes to the Father but through me," then no.
The plain and simple fact is that authentic Christian theology teaches that there is a Heaven and a Hell, if you aren't a Christian, you're going to Hell. That doesn't have to be screamed from the pulpit every Sunday morning, but it shouldn't be ignored by anyone, including McLaren.
And if McLaren insists on hemming and hawing when basic theological questions are asked, then he has no place in Christian leadership. If he insists on hiding his true beliefs in a barrage of obfuscating verbiage, then I don't trust him, and neither should anyone else.
"There is nothing that can help you understand your beliefs more than trying to explain them to an inquisitor."
In my opinion, Pastors should not be "inquisitors". Apparently, when it comes to questioning prospective members and fellow pastors, some folks here disagree.
It seems that the point of the interview was adversarial, and regardless of the answer, if it didn't meet with the absolute interpretation of the author then it would be criticized.
I wish folks spent as much time and effort building relationships with unchurched nonbelievers as they do criticizing and challenging fellow Christians. I am pretty sure that's what Jesus would be doing.
There is a place for vigorous and even adversarial argumentation in the Christian context, including the pastorate. We are called by Christ to be ready to give a defense for our faith and by the Apostles to maintain pure doctrine in the Church.
I'm not getting off topic, but:
Another appropriate setting for a theological inquisition would be a Board of Ordained Ministry. Every minister should know his theology down pat.
But a good point is made in that we should not be feuding all of the time, a la James White. There is room for variety in the Church.
The Clark quote wasn't saying that pastors should be inquisitors. It was a hyperbolic statement that we should be able to explain/defend the orthodox Christian faith, even in the face of pressures & worldly opinion. Of course we don't have all the answers, but we should be able to speak when the Bible speaks.
"There is a place for vigorous and even adversarial argumentation in the Christian context, including the pastorate. We are called by Christ to be ready to give a defense for our faith and by the Apostles to maintain pure doctrine in the Church."
John, not to sound "adversarial", but where does Christ call us to be ready to give a defense for our faith? I have read where he calls us to follow him, where he says we're blessed when we are meek and peacemakers, but i have not read the section of the gospel where Jesus actually says, "hey, you need to defend your faith to me, cause if you don't then I'll...".
I do believe that defending our positions in a vigorous way can be healthy for the Church. If it were in the spirit of the ancient rabbis who enjoyed arguing the "true" orthodox meaning of the Torah then we'd all grow from the experience. They would argue passionately about Torah because the Torah is something worth getting passionate about, but at the end of the day the rabbis would end the arguement and share a meal together.
Well, if we didn't get so caught up with HAVING TO BE RIGHT and simply engaging one another- because doctrine and the Word are both things that are worth being passionate over, but in the end allowing the arguement to come- we might allow THE MEAL, the Eucharist to be that which really binds us together, even in the midst of disagreement.
Oh yeah, the sharing of a meal... that's another one that I remember Christ calling us to do.
Good call, Jonathon. Jesus did not. Peter and Paul, however, did. Paul defended the Gospel in his Acts.
And most of the Epistles are apologetics. I just read Galatians today, which is an argument for Christian theology against a Judaizing heresy. Paul, John, and Jude all wrote against various gnostic heresies, among others.
In this same context, Christians should argue against false teachings. That is my justification for arguing against McLaren.
To add: It is good to have healthy debate. There is room for a variety of doctrines within the Church. It is a big tent.
But not unlimited, as even the Apostles realized. They did not hesitate to command churches to boot out heretics.
Where is the dividing line? I'm not sure. Maybe it's like that Judge Stewart said about pornography: "I know it when I see it."
I certainly don't want to fall into pharisaism or become a harsh dogmatist, but I do see a bothersome trend within mainline Christianity. Sound doctrine, clear biblical pronouncements and apologetics seem to have taken a back seat to an "I'm OK You're OK" philosophy that thinks orthodoxy is not to be invited to the party, like that undesirable relative we all don't want at Thanksgiving dinner. Worse, it confuses the unconverted and the weak brother or sister who are searching for guidelines and truth. For instance, I appreciated my pastor saying from the pulpit yesterday, "Sex is to be practiced within marriage--period. That's God's way." This is a very tenderhearted man, but he had the guts to take a stand on an issue that has gotten very mushy over the years.
Anyway, that's my two cents. I can definitely sit down to a Eucharistic meal with brothers and sisters who don't see eye-to-eye with me on everything. After we share the bread and cup, let's go back to digging for the truth.
I can qoute scripture too :)
WWJD?
Mike said:
One church member commented in a Bible study on how she never liked a pastor who "had all the answers." She said that having all the answers is idolatry. Being open to God's continuing revelation through continued prayer and study of Scripture -- a certain amount of openness, for this person, shows a level of respect and a humble spirit, even if you come down against someone you are called to care for as a brother or sister in Christ.
I agree nobody likes a know-it-all. On the other hand, if a pastor can't speak clearly to the hot issues of our times, where are people to turn for guidance?
I think pastors must take the attitude St. Paul had with the issue of marriage (1 Cor. 7) where he says in effect, "On this particular issue, here's the clear instructions from the Lord. On this issue, there is no clear guidance from the scriptures, but here's my opinion based on what I've learned."
Problems arise when those two get mixed up, and pastors think that the clear instructions from the Lord are open to their interpretation or when pastors begin to think that their opinions are to be considered clear instructions from the Lord where there is none.
Post a Comment