My interest in traversing the emerging/missional landscape involves several factors. I am bi-vocational pastor of an inner city Southern Baptist Church, and in my search for help I found Acts29. I was intrigued because of their success in the city combined with unashamed embrace of a fully-orbed evangelical confessional statement versus the doctrine-ophobia I have encountered among some McLaren-enamored types. I am not a church-planter or re-planter so I needed help and I had no interest in planting a church that imagines that the Apostles Creed can suffice for sustained fellowship over time. History tells us that ain’t so. The Bible has too much to say about too much else.
I find McLaren helpful if I am looking for insights into culture or if I want to know what can go wrong within evangelical churches and how anger and hurt might manifest itself among those who have had bad experiences in evangelical churches.
But I do find McLaren alternately sloppy and disingenuous where the Bible, theology, church history, historical theology or evangelicalism are concerned. He plays himself up as a gentle soul looking for respectful conversation, but that does not include conservative evangelicals. There I find caricature and dismissiveness and evasiveness.
I noted the issues of homosexual behavior and substitutionary atonement; one ethical matter and one theological/doctrinal matter. On both of these, McLaren seems to relish confusion and tends toward the tickling of politically correct ears. “Scholars disagree” is supposed to silence challenges to McLaren’s aw-shucks uncertainty on a range of issues where, surprises surprise, his attractiveness to the politically correct and theologically progressive is deftly maintained.
Is he unable to study the meaning of the word “porneia” in the New Testament? It is not controversial. The finest liberal exegetes (or New Testament scholars of any strpe for that matteer) tell us that, in fact, homosexual behavior is viewed as sinful by the apostle Paul and, almost as certainly, in the words of Jesus in Matthew 15:19 where Jesus’ listeners would have heard that word (porneia) as referencing all unlawful sexual behavior covered by the Levitical holiness code. Liberal scholars admit that this is the meaning of Jesus’ recorded words and go on to reject this New Testament teaching for today’s believers. Such admitted rejection of Biblical teaching I can disagree with but still respect as honest.
But McLaren hem-haws. Why does this kind of thing matter? Because McLaren wants to be viewed as a builder and nurturer of biblical communities of faith. Help me here. How can I take him seriously if he, year after year, evidences no interest in learning what the Bible teaches on just those issues that would render him odious to those who have made him a star? Does not his antipathy toward evangelicals outweigh his stated commitment to the Bible?
Meanwhile, I see in Acts29 effective engagement with young supposedly thoroughly postmodern urbanites while retaining a fully-orbed doctrinal stance and a willingness to bear the brunt of attacks from progressives, liberals, and politically correct bashers of conservative Christians. I suspect a major Baby-out-with-the-bathwater factor borne of the “protest” roots of much that I see in emerging.
Scot McKnight (whose default sympathies are with the McLaren-friendly types and not with the evangelicalism-friendly types like myself) once put it this way: those recovering from fundamentalism are anxious to befriend all those who were “othered” within their former churches. I think McKnight is on to something here. I see an amazing openness to almost anything except conservative Christianity among many within the emerging movement. There is that rush of freedom that comes with liberation from having been denied the good things of Christianity present within other traditions. I understand this from a human and therapeutic point of view, but I also believe that, in time, those who would build and sustain anything recognizably biblical and Christian will eventually have to take stands on the major teachings of Holy Scripture. At this point it appears to me that Acts29 gets this, McLaren seems not to, and significant chunks of the emerging conversation seems indifferent.
One more little tid-bit of my thinking. It strikes me that McLaren and Padgitt speak of postmodernism as a formidable, almost fixed cultural, even philosophical force before which one must genuflect or be found irrelevant. On the other hand Mars Hill/Acts29 try to distinguish within the culture dimensions that are neutral, beneficial, or pernicious vis-à-vis the gospel. This view of the relationship between the confession of the church and culture strikes me as more protective of the gospel and less susceptible to relevance-chasing, heresy-endangered syncretism.
12 responses so far ↓
Charles Churchill // Apr 24, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Spot on.
I wrote a post a few weeks ago along the lines of the “porneia” issue. It seems that McLaren represents a group of people who insist that because we must interpret the Word of God, that we can make it say anything we’d like. The full post is here if you are interested.
Thanks for the post.
Charles
jason powell // Apr 30, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Oh I’m going to go out on my usuall limb and say that for the most part I disagree. First lets be clear, Brian McLaren is a poor theologian…much in the same way that John Lennon was a poor politician.
It’s funny most of the actually “emerging churches” I know of (and I loosley coordinate a cohort of them in Phoenix, Az) take scripture very seriously…. so seriously they are willing to look at it over and over from varying hermenuetical perspectives to try and gain clarity on what the narrative of God’s restoring all things through Christ means today. Take myself for instance:
I reject Penal Substitution as the overarching metaphor for what happened on the cross because my study of scripture has lead me to find Christus Victor a far older and more holistic approach to Atonement.
I find the language of Eternal Concious Torment to be week exegesis based on the limited connection to OT views of the afterlife (the worms crawl in the worms crawl out) and the overarchingly destructive praxis that follows the belief throughout history (colonialism, genocide, fear-tactic evangelism, and legalism come to mind).
I reject a “Left Behind” view of eschatology given the fact that Appocyliptic Lit was metaphore driven and had significant meaning to the audience it was writen to (not us perse). Again praxis is wicked bad historically due to our interpretations of this biblical genre. Take the heresy of dispensationalism (come on it’s been around for like barely 200 years). The word “Rapture” isn’t even found in scripture (not to mention “personal lord and savior”…but that’s another topic.)
That’s enough for now. I’m not going to argue these points here…mostly cause that’s not the point. The point is that myself and pretty much everyone I know in the emergent movement is DEEPLY interested in navigating and re-navigating scripture so it can inform what our faith communities are supposed to be about.
BTW if you don’t like the theology-lite approach McLaren makes….try Stan Grenz and John Franke (Beyond Foundationalism). Or anything by NT Wright, or Newbigin for that matter. I’m not directing this at you Dr. Divine it just seems that no one recognizes that their are major theological voices in the emerging conversation.
Listen McLaren is an instigator, true. But does anyone find it odd that this instigator has sparked a world-wide inquiry into the Christian faith? An inquiry that goes so far as to keep this thread and many more like them humming with angst, worry, and curriosity?
History has been full of heretic, nut-jobs. They come and go (David Koresh, etc) They build a small following–kill themselves– and disapear without a trace. Emergent, McLaren and the rest look, function and behave nothing like this.
Well that should just about do it. Again…I never make any friends on these things
Jason
LayGuy // Apr 30, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Dr. DeVine,
I find this article spot on in what I see happening in todays church. It almost amazes me to see the authority of scriptures thrown out the door these days and allows for any individual to interpret things as they see fit.
I was writing about the current controversies regarding Hybels and Driscoll where I received this comment from an “McLaren friendly type.”
“This is the convenient “God said it, I believe it, that settles it” crap that must constantly be challenged in every generation. You can interpret the Bible your way, and I’ll interpret the Bible my way. ”
Read the post to get the full context. It totally amazes me what’s going on these days.
Equally as frustraing are those unfamiliar with the emerging/emergent/missional movement where they lump good Churches and organisations into the same “you guys are all heretics!” basket. Mars Hill is a case in point.
It’s just my lay opinion. I’m not affiliated with Mars Hill or Acts29. I’m just a guy in Australia serving in my Church completely gob smacked with what I see happening.
Matt Christenot // May 1, 2007 at 10:01 am
Hi Jason,
I learned to grapple with Soteriology in Dr. DeVine’s class, and I can assure you that he does not have a overly narrow view of attonement. Christ triumph over sin and death was taught, but so were other views such as satisfaction, ransom and penal substitution. He will often speak in terms of distinguishing between objective and subjective views of the attonement. Christ as example would be subjective. As far as I can recall, even here he wouldn’t disallow the idea that part of what happened on the cross was Christ setting an example of sacrifical love. It wasn’t only that, but that’s certainly part of it. (I could be rewritting what was taught in my head, so he is free to correct me.)
That aside, what I hear you saying, and I agree, is that it is unfair to characterize emergers as theologically averse. Most of them care a great deal about theology. They are influenced by guys like Grenze, Franke, and Olson as well as many others. Maybe some people are nervous about what they view as a tendency to place mission over theolgy, or to say it another way, they are nervous about an approach that derives theology from mission, rather than mission from theology. I can’t speak for Dr. DeVine, but it seems like that might be his concern.
jason powell // May 1, 2007 at 3:42 pm
I would agree that orthopraxy follows orthodoxy. What I’m seeing in emerging circles is “what has been the fruit of our orthopraxy?” The overarching response in most emerging circles is that it hasn’t been great. Also, thanks for the gracious tenor of your reply!
It’s tough for me in that as I study the wickedness of colonialsim, racism, women’s suffrage, slavery, south american conquest….they all are rooted in the brands of theology guys like Driscoll seem to keep proping up. They almost all support a white, male, power-hungry, consumeristic, hyper-individualistc agenda…..which isn’t the Kingdom of God. So if the emergents are willing to call a spade a spade when it comes to praxis,then I think its a good (and yes scarry and dangerous) thing to ask what has it been in our theology that has lead to or allowed such practices to be condoned…or possibly worse…ignored by our churches.
Also the whole issue of people being scared of who gets to interpret the Bible is kind’ve dumb. Denominations were once small communities who developed a hermenuetic together…then they got big…then they got corporate…then they got irrelevant. EC’ers are doing the same thing and asking for the same rights, for their communities to navigate scripture in light of culture and the Spirit’s guiding to decipher how the narrative of scripture informs and implicates them in the world they live in now.
As far as I can tell this is how it’s always been. The difference to me was suggested by Salley Morgenthaller when she said the odd thing is we are the first generational cycle of the church to be literate enough and historically knowledgable enough to decipher the pattern of the rise and fall of ecclesial patterns.
Jason
Lara C Laity // May 14, 2007 at 8:07 pm
I have a question. I was wondering why it is so important for Acts29 to maintain fellowship with SBC, but then feel totally free to break fellowship with the “McLaren-friendly”. From the outside this seems inconsistant. Shouldn’t we be trying to avoid division among followers of Christ whenever possible?
Dr. Mark DeVine // May 15, 2007 at 6:26 am
Lara
Of course Acts29 is a voluntary church-planting network, not a denomination. Church planters associated with Acts29 take a variety of positions with regard to Brian McLaren. For example Ed Stetzer, a Southern Baptist and Board member of Acts29 has noted that while he is miles away from McLaren theologically, he appreciates many of the cultural insights McLaren brings to the table.
Now, the larger and more serious underlying concern you raise has to do with the importance of maintaining unity within the Body of Christ. This is a major concern and one of the most important matters I can think of for churches and denominations today. But, the authenticity and depth of fellowship and thus Christian unity is to a significant extent proportional to shared conviction, both theological and ethical. Admittedly, one of the chief difficulties across the centuries and in our own day is the sorting out of primary, secondary and tertiary issues, but there can be no avoiding this task where sustained Christian fellowship is the goal.
McLaren refuses to let himself be nailed down on a range of issues that Christians of every major tradition have had virtually zero doubts concerning for 2000 years. In virtually every case (for example homosexual behavior) McLaren secures the applause of the politically correct, the progressive and the unbelieving world. McLaren may have more in common with them than with the Body of Christ across geography and time. I hope you see my point. McLaren is the one who creates most of the strain where Christian unity is at issue, not those who are standing with the church of the ages.
Ariel // Aug 6, 2007 at 6:42 pm
I was recently listening to a podcast where McLaren addressed a group of pastors, and got so fed up I turned him off and started listening to Mark Driscoll scream about inerrancy.
I agree that McLaren has some cultural perspicacity, but he has no theological backbone. Either I’m growing less tolerant or his “postmodern” posture is growing stale. I don’t think McLaren is charting a very sound route ecclesiologically. For my money, it’s Acts 29…
Michael Entner // Sep 1, 2007 at 8:30 pm
As a person who is growing in his faith, I follow the emergent church movement with great interest. This movement appears to be very diverse in its approach to Christianity. I notice that a great deal of focus is placed on one man (McLaren) and his particular ideas about the “deconstruction and reconstruction” of the faith. I think that he is one voice among many that will lead to a sweeping change in the church — whether classical theologians want it to happen or not. I believe that the Bible is open to interpretation and each generation views it through fresh eyes. Isn’t it really a fabulous collection of books chronicling our relationship with God over the millennia? While I am not a Biblical scholar, I am sure there are views that support these diverse generational interpretations. Christianity will evolve (or devolve in the view of others) into something quite different than what we currently experience as members of the Church universal. However, core to those beliefs is the fact that God interacted with man in such a beautiful way that it easily brings tears to one’s eyes. I grew up in the Roman Catholic church and remember reciting the Nicene Creed — and at no time do I remember reciting anything about homosexuality, church structure, or drinking (etc.). Are these issues really core to our faith? More to the point, are we living a life as authentic Christians? I grapple with these issues in my own mind on a daily basis but I don’t claim to have the answers, and neither does one particular pastor or denomination. I have experienced many brands of Christianity over the past few years and I come back to one thing that is holding back Christianity — the Christians. Many of our brothers and sisters are not living the lifestyle. They treat each other horribly and act like the Church is some type of social club in which they are entitled to member benefits. As a person who is embarking on a journey of religious education I hope that I don’t get lost in the deep weeds of theology and can remember to live a life that is pleasing to our Lord. In the end, I will have to stand alone an be judged. I hope it goes well.
Matt // Nov 4, 2007 at 10:56 pm
I wonder if the main reason we’re seeing a tension in how (some) young Christians feel about this issue is the fact that we’re the first generation to actually have grown up KNOWING (openly) gay people, and how profoundly and deeply scarred their hearts can be. The shame, hurt, guilt, confusion, ect. they can experience.
It is NOT the same (for churches, pastors, ect) as dealing with adultery or a gambling addiction or what have you (I’m so tired of hearing that) it’s something most of them have been dealing with since puberty, and depending on their situation growing up, could have been more traumatic for them than we can imagine.
At any rate, NONE of the above changes what the Bible says, nothing can, and I really don’t think people (for the most part) are arguing otherwise. I think people are simply asking for a little reflection when it comes to how to handle this issue.
Matt // Nov 4, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Reading over my comment, I realized I was probably talking about this in a broader sense than addressing the specifics brought up in the post. My apologies!
Spiritbear // Nov 5, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Phariseeic legalism. Pure blatant sexism worse than most conservatives. That is my main issue with Acts 29. McLaren is a bit wishy washy but Driscoll can only appeal to weak willed women and macho men. Any free thinker wouldnt be caught dead in his Church
Leave a Comment