Note: I've had a decent flow of traffic to this post the past day or two, some eight months after I posted it. That's amazing to me. But it's also saddening to me that people are reading it as some heavy condemnation of McLaren. Like I mention in my reply to one commenter, I count some of McLaren's books among my favorites. I walked away disappointed by his presentation that night because I know he's capable of so much more substance and so much better articulation. I wasn't looking for him to present his own doctrinal formulas...I was hoping for more of the thoughtful nuances that he's known for. And all I got that night was a history of the conversation and deferment. That's all I tried to say with my critique. To read me as somebody hostile to emergent is an awful misinterpretation, and I will happily clarify anything that paints me in such a light if you stick around long enough to read my reply to you. That said, I regret the tone of this entry now that I'm far enough removed from it.Last night, I traveled to Malone University to attend a debate between Brian McLaren, emerging/emergent church figurehead, and Bryan Hollon, professor of theology at Malone. The topic of the debate was "Emerging or Diverging: In What Direction is the Emerging Church Movement Headed?" I was a little wary about how this would go, if only because I know Malone to be a fairly conservative institution and to many, McLaren is one of those heathen liberals. So I was concerned that he'd be in front of a hostile audience. To be honest, I was also concerned that he wouldn't do himself any favors...McLaren can be charitable and understated in his approach to the point where he gives away any high ground.
Thankfully, my first concern didn't completely pan out. The second pretty much did.
McLaren was given the floor first, and he first took a few minutes to clarify that the emerging church is not a movement, but a conversation. You know...that old chestnut. A movement, he observed, is something that gets hot for a few years, pastors and churches get on board, and then it fizzles out and everyone moves on to the next thing. In addition, a movement usually has an organizer and a leader, and the emerging church doesn't (O RLY?). A conversation, he suggested, is more of an evolving thing that never really ends. He also observed that when someone is in pain, they want to talk about it and find people experiencing similar pain to have that conversation. This observation was sort of left hanging there, but the connection I think he wanted people to make was that the emerging conversation is being held between a lot of people feeling pain because they can't affirm traditional Christian truths in the same way any more. But that's meeting him halfway.
McLaren then moved into how the emerging has evolved, and told pieces of the story of how the movem...uh...conversation started. This story is chronicled in several books on the emerging church such as Tony Jones' The New Christians: a group of guys got together in 1998 wondering how megachurches can reach people ages 18-35. The discussion eventually turned from how to reach a certain age bracket to how to communicate and think about faith and theology in a changing culture. He then walked people through various emphases that the conversation has taken on over the years, such as gaining an understanding of Christian history beyond the past few centuries, and asking how the gospel speaks to issues such as poverty and ecology. He then made some observations about how the conversation is actually more advanced in other cultures and countries such as places in Africa and Latin America, noting that the group realized the conversation needed to advance beyond white males. Actually, he said "most" of the group realized this (Zing, Driscoll!).
So then Hollon got up, purporting to defend the more orthodox view of things. He made some concessions about the state of the culture, even observing that if certain church trends continue, only 10% of the United States will be involved in churches by 2050. He also stated that he actually agrees with a lot of what McLaren says, but since this was a debate he needed to disagree for the sake of the event. So that was interesting.
Anyway, Hollon first cited McLaren's suggestion that Christian thinking evolves (written in my Moleskine notebook: "Yeah, so?"). He observed that that means that our understanding of Christian concepts is never complete, while the traditional claim is that we've been handed down the One True Faith whole cloth through the various creeds and dogmas. He cited a few Bible verses that suggest as much as well. A little later in his argument, Hollon seemed to suggest that belief and doctrine are keys to "understanding God." That phrase struck me weird, especially since so many great theologians state that our ability to understand God is ultimately limited.
The assumptions on Hollon's end were pretty obvious, and of course he didn't address the issue that these creeds and dogmas need to be reinterpreted for new generations and that prevalent cultural thought may influence how we do that. Hollon suggested that the faith hasn't changed down through Christian history, ignoring the differences between the Athanasian and Arian schools, the changes that came with the Reformation, the divergence in Reformed theology between Schleiermacher and Barth. See...the faith hasn't changed so long as you pay attention to only one tradition.
Hollon's final point had to do with McLaren's advocacy of the use of story and poetry to better communicate in the postmodern era. He first read all the verses of "Joy to the World," noting that many great theologians have also been poets and songwriters. And then he suggested that the story of Christian dogma is the most exciting story in history (Moleskine: "Yikes").
McLaren was offered the chance for rebuttal, which was very gooey. He said that "If what Hollon has said works for you, then great. Don't read my books. But if you have a lot of questions, my books may help you. I like what he said, even if I can't affirm some of it any more." That's a paraphrase. Thankfully, Hollon called him on the gooiness of his reply and stated that he'd hoped for more. I did as well.
At this point, the floor was open to questions, and it very quickly turned into an inquisition of McLaren. One person got up and asked this very precise doctrinal question, to the effect of, "Do you believe that Jesus Christ, God's only Son, came to earth to die as a substitute on the cross to save us from a literal hell so that all who believe may have eternal life?" McLaren first observed the Inquisition spirit of the question, and then stated that he believes that Jesus came to do a lot of things: talk about the kingdom of God, show us something of God's glory and character, etc., and that he can't reduce Jesus to a formula like that. This response actually drew applause.
I had to leave shortly after this, but I nevertheless was glad for the chance to hear McLaren speak, even if I wished he'd been a little more direct about his own positions.
16 comments:
One of the difficulties of the time is that the need for conversation, for relationships that are transcendent rather than adversarial, for unity in Christ, in common humanity, in a sharing of the planet etc. is that...
that enterprise demands, attracts "gooily" disappointing people and activities. I think this is part of the emerging church, but you know this much better than I do.
My experience/observation is that "doing battle with the bad guys" is much more emotionally engaging, much more fun, than the hard, ego-costing work to building relationships (read:"loving enemies") that is called for in this moment.
But as someone old enough to be your dad, I would really like some help with this from you and others of your generation. I see only from my perspective (as I trundle toward my dotage.)
p.s. Would you give me some feedback on our web site?
http://www.excel.net/~stjohns/
I understand what you're saying regarding relationships and not being adversarial, but I encountered McLaren's response as gooey because he didn't articulate his own assumptions, methodology, or epistimology much at all. He just said, "I'm glad Hollon's stuff works for people, but it doesn't for me," but didn't do much by way of saying why, or what does work for him. I think he should have articulated that, not to combat the bad guys, but instead to help people who disagree at least better understand his perspective. This surely is part of that relationship-building, rather than ceding to the other's point without saying much on your own behalf.
I think Brian McLaren has been really helpful in enlarging the conversation, especially in A Generous Orthodoxy, but I think you're absolutely right about the gooey factor of how he goes about doing it. It's not enough to just say "That doesn't work for me;" I want to know what DOES work for you.
Sounds like it was an interesting evening. Glad you got a chance to hear the debate.
Timely help, brothers. Just yesterday or so I was talking with a friend about the power of =witness= in preaching as opposed to merely opining. Good guidance as we head into the all-too-familiar time and texts of the season.
How funny that the weird word of validation below is "angsymen", so close to "angrymen".
I googled the McLaren debate to see if anyone was blogging about it. Your's popped up first. I was a bit surprised by your commments about my paper. I don't think you understood it at all. What doesn't change, I suggested, was the kerygma, the core proclomation that became the "rule of faith" and then was condensed in the early Creeds. The vast majority of post-nicene Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant mainline and evangelical) continue to affirm (at least officially) this dogmatic tradition. It doesn't change, since we continue to recite these creeds. If you have any interest in what I actually said, I'd be happy to send you the actual manuscript.
Sorry, the post by simeonstylites was authored by Bryan Hollon. I'm not much of a blogger. If you'd like, you can contact me at bhollon@malone.edu
I'm not a fan of McLaren, although I'm often interested in what he says.
What frustrates me is his regular inability to affirm questions like the admitted "inquisition." Put the tone aside, does he or does he not affirm the Gospel?
What interests me about McLaren is he asks good questions. He also has the ability to posit himself into situations Jesus faced, like getting grilled by the "doctrinally right" Pharisees. But where Jesus' ambiguous answers shed further light to his claims of Messiah, McLaren's answers cast more shadows than light.
Jeff,
You said, "I was a little wary about how this would go, if only because I know Malone to be a fairly conservative institution and to many, McLaren is one of those heathen liberals."
I think Malone should be applauded for the guts to bring McLaren to campus, not only for this "Worldview Forum," but to speak in Chapel that morning (in which he spoke of the Kingdom of God versus the kingdom of Caesar). Malone has evolved into an institution of intellectual integrity. They are not afraid to bring people in that differ from their Quaker roots. In fact, the biblical faculty is incredibly diverse theologically. I think that Byran Hollon did a pretty good job of presenting his case, with gentleness and respect.
Wasn't it interesting, though, that the extremely conservative pastors and lay-leaders in Canton came out and tried to make it into an inquisition?
I don't think McLaren gives the simple answers to the questions because he values the thoughtful journey to the answers for oneself more than simple positions on doctrine. Doctrine is SO NOT the POINT of the emerging movement, so he isn't going to play that game. I agree.
Brian is a pastor. It's not his way to do what you wanted him to do. Gooey is in his blood as a shepherd. It's not respectful of the person to expect them to be something they're not just to appease you. I also agree with Calvin
See my earlier reply in this comment thread, Makeesha. That's what I was hoping for from him: more of an explanation of assumptions, methodology, epistimology. In a debate format, I would have expected that. Moreso, in an environment where hostility or lack of understanding about emergent was undeniably present, it would have been helpful. I wasn't looking for doctrine and I wasn't looking for hard, rigid answers. I was simply hoping for more of his methodology.
Please understand that I offered this critique as a big fan of McLaren, and as someone who has found his writings very helpful and he himself to be very articulate (and, as you noted, very pastoral). I in no way suggest that I want him to change who he is...who he is is a big reason why I like him so much. Admittedly, "gooey" can easily be construed as a pejorative term, but I meant no serious ill-will by it. I only meant that I was hoping he'd deliver more substance that I know him to be fully capable of doing.
To Liviing the Biblios...
"What frustrates me is his regular inability to affirm questions like the admitted "inquisition." Put the tone aside, does he or does he not affirm the Gospel?"
in a small attempt to mitigate your frustration - I don't think it was the tone at all that brought up comparisons to the inquisition, but rather, the questioning from a position of "assumed correctness". ie. the Inquisitors weren't asking questions to be enlightened, to learn something of theology or of the person, they were trying to see if the person were willing to bow to their power and accept that their view of the world was the correct one.
In the same way, that kind of question toward an emergence person (which I've seen and heard of innumerable times) is an attempt to prove that the emergence person is not in lockstep with the questioners' community (power base). So even though a guy in an audience doesn't have "power", per se, over the speaker on the stage, he is attempting to in some way gain some, by getting the speaker (Brian) to admit publicly he doesn't hold to the group's dogma, and thereby be censured by the group - or what the questioner imagine's that group to be...in this case the applause shows the group wasn't necessarily what the questioner imagined them to be (but he can always go home and blog to the group that he does know hold his views).
So, it's not the tone, but the content. And as a separate side note, it's not the conceptual content as much as the submission to imagined power. I know most would explain it as submission to content/dogma - but I think it goes deeper than that.
"(but he can always go home and blog to the group that he does know hold his views)."
I assume that this is directed at me, Jeff, and if it is then it means that I have royally screwed up in writing this post. I will be the first in line to defend emerging/emergent concepts. I count some of McLaren's books among my favorites. Like I said in my reply to Makeesha, the reason I seem to come down so heavily on McLaren in this post is because I know from my experiences with his books that he could have been much more articulate and substantive than he was that night.
I find it unfortunate that this post is being read the way it is by fellow emergent Christians. Like I said, it must mean that I really didn't write this one well at all.
No, no Coffeepastor, that wasn't toward you. I was continuing to talk about the Inquisitor person(s), who in my example is trying to use a question to subdue the other and gain power over them by their group - and I was just putting in parenthesis that even if the group wasn't there "live" that night in the audience, they could then go and recount the story on their blog to their group and thus gain the power edge they seek.
No, I thought your post was very fair and good, much appreciated.
I thought you had every right to feel he didn't articulate some things as much as you'd like, especially seeing as the venue was a debate. But that could be a number of things - maybe he was tired and just didn't have the energy to get into it - or more likely, the idea that sides are opposed is a very "modern" one based in the realm of logic - if one side is this and the other is that, then they both can't be right. Only one can be right. In a concept based form of religion, holding the right concepts is very important. Emergence theology is moving away from that in ways that cause a lack of opposition - and when one group loves opposition and the other just isn't into it anymore, and don't kinda "want to play"...then the former group gets frustrated. I see that all the time in the conversation between those who might consider themselves still squarely an evangelical, maybe kinda emergence interested and those who have gone over and consider themselves post-evangelical - or however they both would describe themselves, not to put anyone in a box with a label on it:) There are a number of situations like that where there is constant frustration felt by those observing emergence directions. I'm sure you're aware, but just speaking out to give some context to others.
...Oh, and the way I said that about one group loving opposition came out wrong, a softer way to say it would be to say there's an intellectual practice of thinking about things in opposition - this theorem can't work if that theorem is in operation. I can't use this geometric proof if I use that one...and our brains are so trained to think that way, that we have applied that to theology..."systematically".
And there is a way to imagine God and faith and interpret the bible that is emerging which doesn't work that way as much...it understands God through stories about behavior and it's validities are seen in our changing behavior as God lives in us and we get better at community...and when someone who thinks this way encounters a question from someone in the more logical systematic way there are some communication frustrations.
I'm just saying that in general, not necessarily toward your frustration he didn't elucidate enough, which as I've said seems reasonable because it was a debate.
Post a Comment