Writing Down the Jones

Posts Tagged ‘McLaren’

Five Theological Turnings, 2

I finished the second McLaren session from the Abilene Christian University Lectureship, and he was again fairly interesting in his diagnosis of a number of problems within the church, but his read on them exposes some antipathy to conservative viewpoints.

He talks some about atonement, and describes penal-substitution this way: “God needs to destroy us and torture us forever in Hell. And God can’t vent God’s anger unless there is someone to vent the anger on. And so God decides to send his son…and God vents his wrath on Jesus instead of venting his wrath on all of us.” He immediatel admits that his didn’t describe it “gracefully”, but that he was “being very crude”.  But that doesn’t wash off the uncharitible, and truly misleading explanation of penal-substitution. He just left it there, and moved on.

He was quite generous to the other three atonement theories he described…none other got this type of treatment, so his disdain for it is clear, if you’re listening.

One of the things that bothers me, aside from this type of thing (which he does several times), is that one of his major points is that a problem we suffer from is trying to fit all of God, Jesus, and the Gospel into one metaphor.  But his decision is that all the metaphors are bad, and we need a new one, rather than using these metaphors like Jesus’ parables: all are true and descriptive, but none is all encompassing.  Read more

Five Theological Turnings, 1

Brian McLaren spoke recently at the Abilene Christian University Lectureship. ACU is a fairly conservative school, so I was a bit surprised when I saw that he’d be there. Today I’m listening to his first session, called “Five Theological Turnings” (1 of 2). I’ll be posting my thoughts here as I listen.

So far he’s said a lot I agree with about the problems with the church as it stands today, and has stood for the last hundred years. His comments about paradigm shifts, and the need to recognize that there is no single Biblical worldview or correct human perspective, are very true and important to acknowledge. He also cites Barth in saying that theology is not something reserved for a small group of academics.

He’s bothering me a bit, because, while he’s not  adding anything to the discussion, the way he describes situations, and characterizes people’s beliefs – he claims some believe God “created the world, then hated it, and can’t wait to destroy it so he can suck all our souls up to heaven”, and that those who believe that the Father is above the Son or the two are above the Spirit will go around saying that women are superior to men or that their race is superior to others – in a way that just doesn’t gel with the concept of a “generous” anything, let alone orthodoxy.

We’ll see where he goes from here.

Part 1

Segment one was quite interesting. A lot of strong ideas about the breakdown of modernity, not in the form of deconstruction, or an eschwing of concrete truth, but in the form of worldview shifts.

At one point he talks about the discovery of subatomic particles, and the idea that if you start looking at things that are small enough, there’s nothing there; that everything we call matter is “a distortion in the fabric of space and time”.  Much like the idea that in any “solid” object there is more space than matter, if you look closely enough.

“In the beginning was the word.”

What is the word? In human terms it’s a vibration…a distortion and an interruption in the normal pattern with a meaningful purpose.

He also talked about meeting with a group of Kenyan yuppies (young urban proffesionals, for those who don’t know), one of whom mentioned that she’s the only one in her office who goes to church.  The others call themselves athiests and agnostics. She says they “are not athiests”, they’ve “just rejected the God of Kenyan Pentacostalism.”  I can identify there. I often find myself arguing talking in a reasonable and measured tone with people who are angry at a god that I don’t recognize, and is certainly not the one I find in Scripture.

Part two is next. He hasn’t added anything to the discussion, but only described some situations and cited others.  I’m interested in his own ideas.

Brian McLaren’s Bad Logic

"How do I get elected with only one voter?"

"How can I win with just one voter?"

Some subpar reasoning from one of the prominent leaders of Emergent and progressive evangelicalism:

“I’ve only met one person in my travels in recent months who has said he is voting for McCain, and that was because he was an admittedly single-issue voter,” Mr. McLaren said. “Nearly all the vocal people I’ve met are enthusiastic about Obama. Based on the people I’m in front of as a speaker, I’d never guess the poll numbers are as close as they are.”

This is a pretty limited perspective. It would be like me saying, “I’ve only met two people in all my travels who were actually born in China.  Based on the people I talk to, I’d never guess there were a billion Chinese people walkin’ around.” Unfortunately for me, there are, in fact, a billion Chinese people.  And unfortunately for Mr. McLaren:

While national polls show Mr. McCain to be neck and neck with Mr. Obama, a survey from the authoritative Barna Group shows that Mr. McCain holds a commanding lead among evangelicals, with 61 percent to Mr. Obama’s 17 percent.

I find it hard to believe that he thinks he’s speaking in front of a representative sample of evangelicals.

Washington Times via Between Two Worlds

Common Ground

common-ground-diner.jpg[Disclaimer: This post may make me seem divisive, but I don't intend it to.]

Why is the progressive Christian movement – led in part by Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones, and others – so obsessed with finding common ground? I’m hearing it everywhere.  Common ground between Christianity and Islam, between evangelicals and “post-evangelicals”, orthodox and neo-orthodox, traditional and emergent…. It seems to be the answer to everything.

But is common ground really that important? In a lot of situations people say, “the things that unite us are greater than those that divide us.”  But is that really true?  Are the things that unite Christianity and Islam greater than the things that divide us?  Are the things that unite the theologies of Mark Driscoll and Rob Bell greater than those that divide them?  I guess it depends on your perspective.

If you feel, as some do, that the heart of Jesus’ message was changing this world in the here-and-now, the answer is yes.  If you think of salvation as liberations from physical constraints like poverty, oppression, and emotional scars, the answer is yes. But if you think that the message of Christ is bigger than here, and more lasting than now, the answer gets more complicated. Read more

Mark Driscoll and the Progressive Double Standard

e-s_038.jpgAs I thought a little bit more about the tendency I discussed in my last post, other instances of the progressive double standard came to mind.  The most glaring is all the flack Mark Driscoll has taken for pointing out bad theology, particularly at last year’s Convergent Conference (my thoughts here).

It seems that every time he steps out and tries to speak the truth about the poor theology of Emergent leaders, he gets chastised.  The sentiment seems to be along these lines: Who are you to say what is good and bad theology?  To many this sounds righteously indignant.  Unfortunately the people who say it are often doing the same thing themselves.

I keep mentioning McLaren’s new book, but it fits here, too. It seems to be nothing but a treatise on the invalidity of the “conventional” (read traditional or conservative) view of Jesus, and the truth of the “emerging” view.  He mocks traditional doctrines and sets them up with language that we can generously call “unfavorable”.  He is committing the same social crimes that Driscoll seems to be guilty of.  Pagitt is no different.

But Doug and Brian’s behavior will never be acknowledged as akin to Mark’s, because their follower’s believe them to be right, therefore they have the authority to correct and mock other theological positions.