Next Wave is running a two-part article on the History of the Emerging Church. The article draws from recognizable voices such as Tony Jones, Scot McKnight, Dan Kimball & Brian McLaren. Noticably missing are people like Tim Keller, Mark Driscoll, and Neil Cole. However, the article is helpful even if it is more of an Emergent than Emerging history.
Tag: Brian McLaren
New Article: Emergent Theology: The McLaren Method of Interpretation
Next Wave has published an expanded and revised version of one of my recent blog entries. In it I lay out McLaren’s theological method and offer a fourfold critique. The article, “Emergent Theology: The McLaren Method of Interpretation” can be read at Next Wave, along with a recent interview with McLaren.
When you check out the articles, take the time to rate them and/or leave a comment.
The Gospel According to Brian McLaren
** I have significantly expanded and revised this post into an article, located at Next Wave.
Brian McLaren is celebrated by many as a hero of postevangelical theology and ministry. Others lament his writings and practice, branding him a heretic. I believe that McLaren is exemplary for a number of reasons (pastoral, dialogical, sincere, compassionate, creative); however, his theological method is disturbing. Central to his hermeneutic is a suspiscion of the reliability of Scripture.
In The Church in Emerging Culture: Five Perspectives McLaren summarizes his theological method called the “Four Ideas”.[1] These Ideas are: 1) The Gospel as a story, 2) the Gospel as many versioned, many faceted, many layered, and Christ centered, 3) the Gospel as cumulative 4) The Gospel as performative and catalytic.
McLaren stresses his experience of “depropositionlization” in order to appreciate and understand the essentially narrative nature of the gospel, which in turn, became his Idea 1. Ironically, Idea 2 comes in the form of a proposition asserting that the Gospel is “many versioned”, meaning that the gospel story was recorded and is told in a variety of ways, e.g. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John or American, Asian, or African.
While affirming the rich diversity of the gospel’s expression throughout time and across cultures, McLaren does not pose self-contradictory theologies but instead asserts that all of these versions must converge upon the person of Christ, if they are to be considered the gospel. In an effort to heed the epistemological warnings of postmodernism, McLaren states that he can not know that the records of Jesus are accurate with “absolute, undoubtable, unquestionable certainty.”[2]
In Idea 3 McLaren underscores the cumulative nature of the gospel story, pointing out that the story began before the incarnation and that it continues well after the resurrection. He supports this claim by linking Luke’s two part history in the New Testament, where in his gospel he recorded, “all that Jesus began to do and teach” with the Acts of the Apostles as a Spirit-enabled continuation of the ongoing acts of Jesus Christ in his apostles. The fourth and final Idea celebrates the Transformative power of the gospel story, that it is action in time and space. As a result, the community of faith welcomes new people into its faith from various cultures and backgrounds, making the story richer and different. In fact, McLaren even says that it changes the gospel message. This claim indicates that he is not only proposing an alternative methodology but also a redefinition of the message.
McLaren’s uncertainty regarding the records of Jesus and his openness to culture changing the gospel are reasons for concern. Greater clarity on what exactly these statements mean would be helpful. Feel free to enlighten.
[1] See Leonard Sweet, ed. The Church in Emerging Culture: Five Perspectives (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003), 198-206
[2] Ibid., 201
Reflections on Driscoll's Emergent Critique
Exemplary:
- As noted in an earlier post, Mark prefaced his comments with pastoral concern and love–a very different Driscoll from years past. This should be applauded.
- Mark clearly set the stage for his critique by identifying the three steams of Missional.
- His critique of the “Revisionists” was informed by primary resource research and not hearsay or out-of-context interpretation.
- His use of classical Systematic theology categories (e.g. use of atonement theories) to critique other theologies was a great reminder that, in a day when biblical theology is in vogue, systematics are still an important discipline for church life.
Concerns:
- Though Driscoll engaged McLaren, Pagitt and Bell in context, he did not do so from a comprehensive understanding of their theologies. Not that he has to cite every work they have written, but understanding the isolated “heresies” within a greater framework would have been really helpful, especially with the Bell critique.
- From my limited exposure to Bell, he relies too heavily upon Rabbinic commentary; however, does this translate to not being Jesus-centered? Thoughts?
- Driscoll critique’s McLaren’s silence on homosexuality issue. “No answer is an answer.” It would have been better to get McLaren’s actual stance on this.