Question: How many Orthodox Presbyterians does it take to change a lightbulb?
Answer: “Change?!?!?!”
I function within the world of conservative Reformed Christianity. Because of this, I understand Brian McLaren’s passion to change things which he feels needs to be changed within Evangelicalism. There are certain areas within the world of conservative Reformed Christianity that I hope do change. The difference, I think, between McLaren and I is that I utterly appreciate and love the Reformed heritage. Even though I believe that it can result in dry dogmatism and ingrown, lifeless churches, there are veins of the Reformed community that are missional, contextual, and progressive (I’m thinking of the works of men like Harvie Conn and John Frame as well as the work of church planters like Tim Keller), which I learn from and thank God for. The more I learn about the conservative Reformed heritage, the more I see how wrong some of my views of them were. The more fairly I read them, the more valid both my understanding of them and my critiques of them are.
McLaren, however, does not seem to take this approach. Instead of learning from his heritage (the full breadth of his heritage), he seems to want to caricature it, throw it away, and reinvent what he thought was wrong with it in the first place. The problem is that McLaren does not give evangelicalism a fair reading. This is probably the biggest problem that I have with McLaren and his work. To be sure, there are strands within evangelicalism that do fall into the caricature that McLaren presents to his readers. But it is entirely unfair and ultimately dishonest to paint the entire scope of evangelicalism with the brush that McLaren paints it with. Again, both “sides” of the emerging movement needs to be fair in their reading of the other side. Otherwise the critiques either side writes will be both invalid and unhelpful.
That McLaren does not understand evangelicalism as a whole or evangelical theology has been clear in both Generous Orthodoxy and The Secret Message of Jesus. It was even clearer in the latter because he writes about the Kingdom of God being the “secret” message of Jesus…the same idea that was put forth by Herman Ridderbos more than 40 years ago in the influential book The Coming of the Kingdom (it is also interesting that Ridderbos uses the same exact language concerning the kingdom of God in his very first chapter: “the secret and the miracle implied in the preaching of the kingdom heaven [lies]…in the entirely new way in which this preaching was done” p.15). This, to me, almost single handedly invalidates McLaren’s critiques because in order to critique something, one must understand what he or she is critiquing!
McLaren is not critiquing evangelicals or evangelical theology as much as he is critiquing his very naive and shallow understanding of evangelicalism that he gleaned from his upbringing in one solitary pocket of evangelicalism. For someone who seems to be concerned with justice, this is an extremely ironic way to write.
If I grew up surrounded by a group within the strict Catholic sect Opus Dei, would it be fair or just for me to paint Catholicism as a whole or every single Catholic based on that experience? Would it be fair for me to conclude that all Catholics believe that wearing a cilice will bring me closer to God? Would it be fair or just for me to conclude that all Catholics believe in the extreme fasting and corporal mortifications (like sleeping without a pillow or standing in the shape of a cross for hours and hours) as a way to atone for my sins and for the sins of those around me?
Absolutely not.
Yet this is what McLaren is doing to evangelicalism. Instead of reading evangelicalism fairly and seeing that there are many, MANY people and churches that are seeking to be missional and seeking for social justice, he only sees preachers who are screaming about hell. Instead of reading evangelical theology and seeing that many before him have stressed the kingdom of God and the transformational power of the gospel that extends not only to our souls, but also to nature, he only sees Christians exploiting the world’s natural resources because they are expecting to be raptured at any minute because now Israel is an official state and Hillary is probably the anti-Christ.
McLaren must learn to accurately understand and describe evangelicalism before he can hope to critique it.
This was my overall, basic observation that really struck me as I read McLaren’s new book. I am going to break up my review of the book into 8 parts, which mirror the 8 parts of McLaren’s book. I just wanted to say this first and foremost, because I think it is extremely important.
With that said, the reviews that follow will honestly attempt to follow the advice that I just wrote about. I am attempting to honestly understand McLaren’s work, to see the good in his work, and also to critique the not-so-good. I hope that whether you are fundamentalist, evangelical, emerging or all three that you will find these reviews fair and helpful.
6 October 2007 at 1.18 pm
Art,
I’m reading the book now. I don’t sense he’s thinking he’s caricaturing all of evangelicalism, but he does at times get close. How often does he use the word “evangelical” for his target? I’ll be watching for this.
OK, I’m on board with this regular critique of Brian — that he isn’t fair with evangelicals; they are more varied than this etc etc.
Now the question: How pervasive do you think the conventional gospel he is fighting against is in the evangelical world? (And don’t equate your Reformed evangelical world with the evangelical world.)
I keep coming back to this question in my reading of him. The book’s foil is that gospel, as you know.
6 October 2007 at 2.04 pm
Scot,
Thanks for your comment.
I do think that the “gospel” that Brian is fighting against has been a pervasive influence in the evangelical world. His critiques of the “gospel” being all about knowledge hit home to me especially as I’m part of the Reformed evangelical world.
I just think that the way he is going about his critique of this “gospel” is limiting his influence; and this is a shame because much of what he says needs to be heard (regarding the holistic nature of the gospel incorporating finances, nature, etc.).
It is limiting his influence because by not understanding evangelical theology and the pockets of evangelicalism that have taught what he is now teaching, he is seen as presenting something completely new and radical. By this fact alone, the older generation of Christians who have propitiated the type of gospel that Brian is fighting against a priori write him off.
Had Brian’s work included the thinking and works of men like Ridderbos, Conn, Calvin, Hodge, Guiness, Packer, Piper, etc. I think the older generation of evangelicals would be more keen to listening to what Brian says. In other words, if Brian had taken the posture of, “Look what brilliant men in our shared heritage have said about the gospel in the past. Now look how we have warped that gospel into being only about our souls and life after death. We need to learn from these men, take a look at ourselves and the world we now live in, and look back at Scripture afresh to understand where we have gone wrong,” I think his influence would be much, MUCH wider and he would have a much better understanding of both what he is critiquing and what the answers for the evangelical church are.
But instead, he has taken a road which alienates him from evangelicalism at large by not tapping into our shared heritage and progressing from there and seemingly attempting to separate himself from evangelicalism (as can be inferred from his “conventional view” vs. “emerging view” section).
Does that make sense?
6 October 2007 at 9.04 pm
Yep, it does make sense. McLauren has narrowed the scope of people who will change by alienating those who do not agree with him. If everything must change then the point is to reach those who are in need of change and be convincing, not merely reaching those who are already open for conversation of change or affirm those already in agreement.
7 October 2007 at 7.47 am
Art,
I doubt McLaren or many others are worried much about Ridderbos, Harvey Conn, Calvin and Hodge. Each of those had a formative role to play in the history of Reformed evangelicalism, but evangelicalism is bigger than that and most of those who like these four thinkers don’t care much to integrate themselves into the larger evangelical movement.
As for Os Guinness — he’s excoriated postmodernity of late and shows he isn’t recognizing the three turns one finds, for instance, in Caputo’s little book on theology and philosophy. I like to read Guinness but I don’t think he’s taken postmodernity seriously enough.
And Piper shows no interest in anything but Edwardsian Calvinism.
McLaren has other fish to fry on this one.
Other than Harvey Conn — and I have to say that he’s not known much outside some limited Reformed circles — none of these has the sort of grasp of the gospel that Brian thinks has to be forged. A social vision of what gospel work creates.
Now here’s what I would say, maybe you agree or disagree: Brian is not operating in evangelical circles like that; his audience is not getting the lethargic awakened but the departing and disaffected gathered around the themes that they find central to how to live in our world today.
7 October 2007 at 8.56 am
Art,
Maybe I could put it this way: Brian’s audience is not evangelicals; it is post-evangelicals.
7 October 2007 at 9.01 pm
Art I think you are spot on here while we haven’t taken postmodernity as a culture and context of mission enough to heart in Reformed circles as Scot suggests I think McLaren and other Emergent leaders haven’t taken to heart the damage that caricatures of evangelical churches can rend on the body…especially if Brian’s audience are the post-evangelicals rather than those without Christ.
My honest fear is that the outcome will be division rather than mission. That the motivation in projects like McLarens’ is insulation against the otherwise hostile majority rather than thoughtful and dependent conversations about Christ, mission, and those without either. If all we get from pomo Christianity is deconstruction and then reconstruction among a new holy remnant now defined by the absence of the majority then I don’t think we’re getting any closer to Christ’ Kingdom Come. And perhaps our turn is more ‘Constantinian’ than we’d like to admit.
My prayers are with the Emergent Network, as well as the conversation that may be fostered out of McLarens work, may God move them and us beyond ‘Emerging Hypocrisy’ or ‘Reformed Hubris’…to a place were the best picture of the ‘other’ is displayed rather than the easiest or most self-gratifying one. We all have audienced by only one person in the stands counts…
Tony
7 October 2007 at 9.03 pm
“We all have audience’s but only one person in the stands counts…the God of mission”
(correction) Tony
8 October 2007 at 10.37 pm
[...] mclaren must change?: 02 I was going to start on my review of the first section of McLaren’s new book, Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crisis, and a Revolution of Hope, but I wanted to address something that was brought to my attention by Scot McKnight in his comments on my last post on McLaren. [...]
15 October 2007 at 12.33 pm
[...] the caricature of the “conventional” view given my McLaren in this section is what led me to write this little rant. Although there is some truth in what McLaren is saying about the “conventional” view, [...]
29 October 2007 at 9.18 am
As I read these posts as a 52 year old “evangelical” Pastor that has given the last 27 years of his life to the Church, I honestly cannot remember presenting the evangel as a “way out of hell” or just having to do with heaven. (Art could correct me on this, he endured MANY of these sermons). All many “evangelical” pastors I know have tried to do is reach people with the gospel of Jesus and help put their lives back together through discipleship, helping them realize that they were now part of the advancement of God’s kingdom. I sense that I am Brians enemy when I read him, yet he has me ALL WRONG, and I can say that for many of my fellow “evangelical” pastors.
29 October 2007 at 9.19 am
Let me rephase the above, not “enemy”, but “whipping post”!