I realize from Chad and Dave (commenters on my last "emergent" post) that Brian McLaren is not the only spokesperson for the Emergent Dialog, nor is he the intellectual center of the movement. He seems to be the most visible, however.
Let me direct you to an interesting PBS documentary on McLaren featured in Religion and Ethics Weekly. Watch it. It is about 8 minutes in length.
Here are a couple of McLaren quotes that I would like to comment on.
LAWTON (To Pastor McLaren): You're pretty critical of many Christians' focus, emphasis on personal salvation after death. Why is that?
Pastor MCLAREN: Well, first of all, I'm not at all against the idea of a personal relationship with God. I think that's where it all begins. And I think this is part of the beauty of the message of Jesus. Every individual is invited into a personal relationship with God. But personal is not private. The church has been preoccupied with the question, "What happens to your soul after you die?" As if the reason for Jesus coming can be summed up in, "Jesus is trying to help get more souls into heaven, as opposed to hell, after they die."
I largely agree with McLaren here. If you look at the gospel as Jesus preached it, it does not look like what gets preached predominantly in Christian churches today. I don't want to unpack my statement here and now ... but McLaren is correct. There is a lot of preaching about getting saved ... and not a lot on the kingdom of God.
(To Pastor McLaren): You don't seem to enjoy giving straightforward answers.
MCLAREN: Well, you know, a couple people tell me they think I'm being evasive. They think I'm a coward, I'm afraid to say what I really think. But here's the interesting thing. I don't think I'd be saying what I'm saying if I was a coward. I'm saying that because I'm trying to be faithful to God, I'm trying to be faithful to the teaching and example of Jesus. So it's my fidelity to my understanding of the Christian message that makes me say sometimes, "We're asking the wrong question."
I am sure McLaren is sincere here. There is something to asking the right questions. Sometimes we do need to back up and re-examine ourselves in light of scripture. The danger, I suppose, is if McLaren never gets around to finding answers. The interview seems inconclusive. I am all for introspection and reflection. But historical Christianity includes confessing truths, as well.
A short rabbit trail: It is funny how McLaren seems happy to label himself in such a variety of ways. McLaren wears so many labels, that they become ultimately meaningless (e.g. evangelical, charismatic, fundamentalist, Anabaptist, Anglican, and Catholic ). Just try and blend those and see what you come up with ;-)
Pastor MCLAREN: The Bible's so much more complex than that. If people want to start picking out a verse from the Bible here and picking out a verse there, and picking out a verse, we're going to have stonings going on in the street. It's a crazy way to interpret the Bible, in my opinion. Now that doesn't mean that we just throw out the Bible, but we've got to learn ways to engage with the wisdom in the Bible that help us be more ethical and more humane and not less.
McLaren's got a point about some really bad proof texting out there. I see Christians yank things out of context to make a point. Just try reading His Utmost For Our Highest. Great stuff in there -- just horrible proof texting. We could all use a good course in hermenuetics. His last statement is a little odd. Not sure what to make of it. Nonetheless, I think we all need to learn the principles of good interpretation, how to study the Bible, how to do word studies etc. There are plenty of good materials out there to help in this.
Pastor MCLAREN: First of all, when we talk about faith, the word "faith" and the word "certainty," we've got a whole lot of problems there. What do we mean by "certainty"? If I could substitute the word "confidence," I'd say, yes, I think there are things we can be confident about, and those are the things we have to really work with.
Prof. CARSON: Human beings can know things, not with the certainty that belongs only to God, but with all kinds of degrees of certainty on which you base your life. The kinds of knowledge that are appropriate to human beings.
McLaren hates the word certainty. In my opinion, this is a language thing. His use of the word confident could easily fit with the theory of knowledge as "justified true beliefs". Human beings act on beliefs that they confidently hold all the time. This is the point Carson makes.
I don't like how McLaren says faith and certainty are problematic. It is easy to misinterpret what he means. He should talk about faith as confident trust with good reasons. Perhaps if he did that, instead of harping on "certainty", there would be a whole lot less confusion and angst out there.
That is my twenty minute analysis of the latest McLaren interview. What say you?
Jeff,
Let's think along the lines of your comment about how to communicate the gospel as Jesus did. We should think about how Jesus presented his Kingdom and the call to follow him as ambassadors, peacemakers, fishers of men, cultural transformers and image bearers.
I am beginning to think more intentionally about how to present the gospel as Jesus did. Studying the sermon on the mount has given me some great thoughts. I just need to make more time for these studies!
Great review!
Thanks,
Brian
Posted by: Brian | July 19, 2005 at 22:21
Thanks for the link, Jeff -- this is a really good piece. And, largely, I agree with your analysis of the interview.
Have you read any of McLaren's books? They're quick reads, and I think they would help you contextualize some of what he said in this interview. For example, the comment about being "more humane" in how we approach the Bible: having just read "The Last Word and the Word After That," I think what he's getting at is how we sometimes promote a particular view of a doctrine without any regard for its broader implications about things like love and justice. The traditional, literal "fire and brimstone" view of hell, for example, particularly if we tack on double predestination, raises serious questions about God's love and justice that we at least have to be willing to confront in an honest way. Too often, we just blow those questions off in what seems like, and often is, arrogance masked with piety.
One of the really interesting things about this interview segment, for me, is how unreasonable Dondald Carson appeared. Perhaps it was the result of editing, but he dosn't seem to really engage anything McLaren is saying -- he simply proclaims him "dangerous" and suggests, without explaining, that McLaren compromises some things that are "essential to the gospel."
For me, this kind of talk by Carson gets my hackles up. Much of this is personal -- having been raised in an exclusivist fundamentalist church, there were lots of things I was taught were "essential" that really aren't. Having then moved to a different fundamentalist church in my teens, I learned about yet other supposed "essentials" -- with the result that I spent many years in anguished anxiety about whether I really, truly had ever been "saved."
God gave me peace about many of these things long before I'd heard of the Emergent conversation, starting with the time I spent at Gordon College. But, I've found that much of what McLaren and others in Emergent are saying resonates deeply with me because of these experiences I've had. I remember reading McLaren's "A New Kind of Christian" on an airplane during a business trip with tears running down my cheeks -- that's how much I could relate to the injuries an overly self-assured fundamentalism can inflict.
I suspect that many who react strongly against Emergent can't relate to the legitimate angst many honest people feel over the fractious intellectual precision folks like Carson seem to want to bring to something that, in essence, is a mysterious relationship between broken people and an ineffible God incarnated in Jesus.
Posted by: dopderbeck | July 20, 2005 at 11:04
DT, That's a good review. While I fall into the camp of those that feel McLaren equivocates too much (at least linguistically), we should not ignore the fact that he's asking some good questions (as you've pointed out). Rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater, it would do a lot more good for more traditional evangelicals to become a little more humble and realize that maybe the Emergent folks are making a few good points.
Go ahead and take issue with the EC on certain matters, but no need to label them heretical and become dismissive. In short, your approach here in this post was a refreshingly honest and open look at this.
Posted by: Chad | July 20, 2005 at 12:00
David,
Have you read any of McLaren's books?
No I have not.
They're quick reads, and I think they would help you contextualize some of what he said in this interview. For example, the comment about being "more humane" in how we approach the Bible: having just read "The Last Word and the Word After That," I think what he's getting at is how we sometimes promote a particular view of a doctrine without any regard for its broader implications about things like love and justice.
The traditional, literal "fire and brimstone" view of hell, for example, particularly if we tack on double predestination, raises serious questions about God's love and justice that we at least have to be willing to confront in an honest way. Too often, we just blow those questions off in what seems like, and often is, arrogance masked with piety.
I understand. It is fine to ask questions. For example, in the hell example, perhaps our paradigm of love is wrong. Could it be that hell is a loving expression? That would be an interesting question to explore.
A good thing to remember (perhaps McLaren does this) is that our generation is not the first to think of hard questions about reconciling God's love and justice. It is okay to look at the great thinkers of the past and learn from them. It would be arrogant, in fact, to ignore them (chronological snobbery, as Lewis used to call it).
One of the really interesting things about this interview segment, for me, is how unreasonable Dondald Carson appeared. Perhaps it was the result of editing, but he dosn't seem to really engage anything McLaren is saying -- he simply proclaims him "dangerous" and suggests, without explaining, that McLaren compromises some things that are "essential to the gospel."
I think this is editing. It is an 8-minute segment, after all, and McLaren is given the lion's share of the coverage. I would withhold judgment until after you heard a full blown explanation of Carson's views.
For me, this kind of talk by Carson gets my hackles up. Much of this is personal -- having been raised in an exclusivist fundamentalist church, there were lots of things I was taught were "essential" that really aren't. Having then moved to a different fundamentalist church in my teens, I learned about yet other supposed "essentials" -- with the result that I spent many years in anguished anxiety about whether I really, truly had ever been "saved."
God gave me peace about many of these things long before I'd heard of the Emergent conversation, starting with the time I spent at Gordon College. But, I've found that much of what McLaren and others in Emergent are saying resonates deeply with me because of these experiences I've had. I remember reading McLaren's "A New Kind of Christian" on an airplane during a business trip with tears running down my cheeks -- that's how much I could relate to the injuries an overly self-assured fundamentalism can inflict.
Others have had your experience. My sister, for example, has had a very similar journey as you. Even though I come from the same family, my parents had moonwalked away from a strong strain of fundamentalism by the time I became a teenager. I do not carry the same scars as she does … hence, my hackles do not come up as quickly as hers (and yours) do.
Here is a neat thought. God redeems everything. He redeems your experience, and mine. We are both shaped uniquely to ambassadors for the kingdom of God. How God does this always amazes me … just like how God redeemed Joseph's brothers horrific sin as part of Israel's redemption from starvation. We worship a huge God who is capable of displaying amazing grace in ways we cannot begin to fathom.
I suspect that many who react strongly against Emergent can't relate to the legitimate angst many honest people feel over the fractious intellectual precision folks like Carson seem to want to bring to something that, in essence, is a mysterious relationship between broken people and an ineffible God incarnated in Jesus.
You may be right. Or, it may be that Carson is trying to correct a pendulum swing that has gone so far in the direction of uncertainty that it suddenly puts truth and knowledge back on the table as negotiables. [Note: it may be that Carson has misjudged the swing ... still, he is acting on that and with a clear conscience toward protecting the church from error]. It is hard to discern because you and I cannot see into Carson's heart, and all we have to go on is sound bites from a tiny documentary. Fortunately, God can see the heart. God is the perfect arbiter of justice. IMO, we need to trust God and extend grace ... lest we appear like the unmerciful servant, who was forgiven much, but unable to forgive at all.
Posted by: Dawn Treader | July 21, 2005 at 08:51
Jeff,
Thanks for these thoughts. I didn't mean to suggest anything negative about Carson's character. I'm sure, as you say, that his criticism of McLaren isn't intended as malicious.
Re: Hell -- (uhoh, I sense another thread going awry...) -- I think part of what McLaren and others in Emergent are trying to do on this score is reengage some of that historic thought about things like Hell, the atonement, etc. Here I do think, though, that some care needs to be taken by folks interested in Emergent. There are some voices in Emergent -- and McLaren may be one of them, though he's frustratingly opaque on this question -- who tend towards universalism. In my view, universalism crosses a line that exits from "mere Christianity" into something else.
That said, there's room lots of fruitful discussion, even within "mainstream" Evangelicalism, about the nature of Hell. I've really appreciated C.S. Lewis' ideas about Hell and divine justice, particularly the Screwtape Letters, the Great Divorce, and some of the stuff in the Narnia Chronicles (The Last Battle in particular). Lewis sees Hell not as some kind of indiscriminate torture, but as the culmination of a person's lifetime of choices to separate him or herself from God. And, I've appreciated the many Evangelical theologians who have recognized that the Biblical imagery of Hell is just that -- imagery -- and that, whatever the precise nature of Hell is like, it is proportionate, just, and consistent with every aspect of God's nature, including His love.
And finally re: my experience -- yes, God does redeem everything! There's much about my faith background I wouldn't change for anything. And I shouldn't give the impression that I've wandered from the faith in some way -- I never have (other than the normal daily ups and downs of any believer) -- and even today I remain solidly Evangelical with a visible leadership position in my church. But, I guess my experiences make me a bit quirky about some things. Quirky is good though, I hope.
Finally, the critical question of the evening for me: why is it that I can split the 150-yard markers with a 220 yard laser-drive, then skull my 7 iron into the bunkers off to the right of the green? Why can't I ever put three good shots in a row together? Explain that, and I will take any epistemological stance you think is appropriate.
Posted by: dopderbeck | July 21, 2005 at 22:33
And, I've appreciated the many Evangelical theologians who have recognized that the Biblical imagery of Hell is just that -- imagery -- and that, whatever the precise nature of Hell is like, it is proportionate, just, and consistent with every aspect of God's nature, including His love.
What do you mean that it is "consistent with every aspect of God's nature, including His love?" God's love will be present in hell?
Posted by: Joel Haas | July 24, 2005 at 16:51
Joel -- the idea I have in mind is at least two-fold: (1) it is God's love for us that allows us free will. If we reject Him (and thus choose Hell), in His love for us He allows us to make that choice; (2) whatever the precise nature of Hell is, it is not some sort of arbitrary torture. It is proportionate to a person's works and thus doesn't betray God's love or justice. (This second point -- that there will be "gradations," so to speak, of Hell -- isn't necessarily accepted by all Evangelicals, but I believe it's logical and Biblical).
The question of whether God's love will be "present" in Hell is an interesting one to me. We Evangelicals often speak of Hell as "separation from the presence of God." This terminology seems a bit imprecise to me. God, being omnipresent, is present in Hell as well. And, since God always possesses all of His attributes in full measure, His love must be part of His presence in Hell.
I think what we mean when we speak of separation from God's "presence" in Hell, however, is separation from His "blessings." All of the good things we enjoy -- even simple things like food, friends, conversation fresh air, etc. -- are blessings from God. Hell is in some very real and very awful sense a separation from those good things. (One good illustration of this is C.S. Lewis' allegory, "The Great Divorce"). Maybe Jeff has some more to add here.
Posted by: dopderbeck | July 24, 2005 at 20:00
Finally, the critical question of the evening for me: why is it that I can split the 150-yard markers with a 220 yard laser-drive, then skull my 7 iron into the bunkers off to the right of the green? Why can't I ever put three good shots in a row together? Explain that, and I will take any epistemological stance you think is appropriate.
It is called the curse of a great drive. Two ways to solve this ... depending on whether you are a "feel" player (picture Fred Couples) or a "technical" player (picture Greg Norman).
If you are a feel player, you need to get your mind off the fact that you hit a great drive. Try this the next time you smack a drive ... as you are getting ready to hit your seven iron, focus your mind on cheeseburgers (or curly fries, or whatever tasty treat you like). Get your mind off the shot, and you will free your body to hit the shot.
If you are a technical player like me, you need to have a good technical swing thought. Skulling indicates a very specific problem. Your angle of address has changed slightly between your address and your contact. You need to maintain a consistent angle. The way to do this is to anchor your feet. I imagine a spike going through the front part of my heels into the ground anchoring me to the ground. This thought keeps me anchored ... most time, new golfers are up on their toes, and they sway a little too much causing problems. By putting your weight on the front part of the heels, you are better anchored ... your fat shots will decrease, and your skulls will decrease ... and your enjoyment will go way up.
So ... now that I have helped your golf game, are you ready to reconsider your views on realism? ;-)
Posted by: Dawn Treader | July 25, 2005 at 18:16
What do you mean that it is "consistent with every aspect of God's nature, including His love?" God's love will be present in hell?
I don't know if I would express it that way exactly. I would say that God's holiness demands a perfect expression of justice and love. Hell fits into that equation, true?
I have heard one theologian express it this way. A loving God is giving a person in hell what they desire the most -- the absence of the spirit of God. Such a person wants to get as far away from God as is possible -- God, in His love, grants this request.
As to the "physical" reality of hell (i.e. a torture chamber full of sulfur and flames) ... the Bible uses fiery imagery to indicate judgment consistently. Hell is certainly a place of ultimate judgment ... but is it literally a gigantic sea of fire? There are some problems with that interpretation if you compare different passages on hell ... J.P. Moreland has some interesting thoughts on the actual reality of hell in The Case For Faith. I'll leave it to you to research that.
As to the presence of the spirit of God in hell ... I guess I differ somewhat from David here. In my view, God's presence is not in hell. I don't know how to reconcile that with the historic understanding of "omnipresent". That would be interesting to work out.
C.S. Lewis has some very interesting views on hell. I think he is more on the edge and not really mainstream in his thinking. His depiction in The Last Battle is really thought provoking, for instance.
What are your views Joel? How do you reconcile the notion of hell and God's love?
Posted by: Dawn Treader | July 25, 2005 at 18:32
So ... now that I have helped your golf game, are you ready to reconsider your views on realism? ;-)
I'll tell you after the next time I play --- if that spike in the heel thought works, you can call me "Tom" (Reid, that is).
Posted by: dopderbeck | July 25, 2005 at 21:21