I commend to everyone this interview for the late (and at least by me lamented) New Pantagruel. The interviewer, Dan Krauss, does a good job of trying to pin McLaren down without being confrontational about it. And it’s plain that the latter does not want to be pinned down, in many cases. Neither does his church’s website: for instance, after all these years it still avoids picturing the sanctuary, though they love to show that barn and all the empty land behind.

I have a problem with the phrase “rigid orthodoxy” in the lead-in, but it also struck me that, after McLaren essentially dismissed Catholic theology on the basis of the pedophile priest crisis, Zoll gives him an easy pitch by asking him about the movement’s “weaknesses”, when it strikes me in juxtaposition that she should have asked him to list the movements’ sins. It also strikes me, however, that journalism— probably even Christian journalism— is really not capable at getting a grip on this thing. I mean, there’s a definite level (and often an excessive level) of not-pinned-down-ness in Anglicanism; but it’s really pretty hard to compare the two, as it stands. It would be especially illuminating to put a really smart Anglican— say, N. T. Wright— with McLaren and record the discussion.

#2 asks in part: “Was Jesus being literal when he said, `I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.’”. Now, if the word “literal” were replaced with “correct” or “accurate” there would be no problem. The trouble is, “literal” doesn’t mean true, it means not using any metaphors or symbolism. Using the word “literal” to mean “really” ruins the original, useful meaning of the word and replaces it with a meaning we have lots of other good words for, which is why C.S. Lewis called it a “vile journalistic cliche”.

A literal way is a road, a path, or a street. A literal truth is a propositional statement that corresponds to reality. Literal life means the biochemical processes in a plant or animal that keep them from being physically dead.

No one belives this about Jesus. Not the most diehard fundamentalist believes that Jesus is a Way in the same ordinary normal sense that “51st Ave” is a way.

#3 refers to the “Sacrament of Marriage”. Now some protestant churches teach that there are only two sacraments, Baptism and Communion. Others don’t like to use the term Sacrament at all, believing that it is associated with superstitious teachings, and prefer terms like Ordinance. I don’t agree with either group, but both groups include very conservative people who would definitely believe that all sex outside of heterosexual marriage is a sin. So #3 seems like the wrong thing to ask except to a person in a tradition where the meaning of the word “Sacrament” is already agreed upon.

I don’t know if those three questions will reveal much, since, as Scot McKnight points out, the emergent folks are less concerned with epistemology—how we know the truth—and more concerned with ecclesiology, or how to “do church.” I heard McClaren once describe the faith as more of a craft—like the art of making a violin—and less like a static set of beliefs.

I don’t think the TMatt Trio works as an effective test in his case.

Perhaps the best way to describe Truth for an Emergent would be what Walsh and Keesmaat (Subverting the Empire) describe as “Relational Truth.” Christianity cannot be fully experienced or embraced without an authentic encounter with the Relational God. Much more should be said on this point.

As far as what Emerging Christians would think of the Apostle’s Creed; well, we are drawn to it. Its formulation predates the final compilation of the canon, so it seems that the early church would have understood it as a summary of its beliefs. Now, where it becomes tricky is discerning how one chooses to interpret the various lines of the credal statement. That is entirely a different subject.

For a good so-called definition of Emerging Church, download Scot McKnight’s article “5 Streams of the Emerging Church.”

Also, if you enjoy discussion on this and other theological issues, please feel free to visit my blog: Groans From Within

When asked about orthodoxy, he brings up pedophile priests, as if that has anything to do with orthodoxy. But it serves his purpose: he transports ugliness to his critics so that his audience is inclined not to look at their ideas. So, not only doesn’t he answer questions addressed to him, he engages in ad hominem attacks in order to diminish the stature of his critics and thus provides incentives for his audience not to ask questions to those with whom he disagrees. This is perverse.

McLaren is a bad teacher, for he nurtures in his students bad habits of thinking and bad habits of trying to understand others.

1. There is absolute Truth
2. Our minds are finite.
3. Our grasp of ultimate Truth is therefore limited.
4. To claim that one has the Truth completely nailed down is to limit God to our finite understanding and thus idolatrous.
5. When we talk about God it is necessary to hold a certain humility.
6. What the emerging conversation/church is about is maintaining a stance of humility in HOW one holds one’s faith.
7. Further, one can be orthodox (= check off the right answers on the doctrinal list) and fail in orthopraxity (sp?)
8. What the world needs right now is “Jesus followers” even more than “Jesus admirers”
9. A “Jesus follower” does protest unjust systems. If you claim to know God, and yet do not love, you are a liar. If you tell your brother/sister, “God loves you” and fail to share your “daily bread,” then you are a liar.

Held in One Peace, Duh-sciple

actually, this is a helpful post about the emerging church…

Peter+

http://santospopsicles.blogspot.com

If so, I believe Brian McLaren represents the emerging Sadducean stream.

;-P

Any thinking reporter would be ready to call McLaren out on this false dichotomy - after all, doesn’t “correct belief” specify how to direct that faith? And what means grace - who provides it, how and why?

McLaren: “The church must present the Christian faith not as one religious army at war with all other religious armies but as one of many religious armies fighting against evil, falsehood, destruction, darkness, and injustice.”

Sounds nice on the surface, but as he’s so intentional in his postmodern resistance to absolute truth claims, a reporter could simply ask him to define “falsehood”.

McLaren’s point about the Catholic Church’s abuses makes sense to me NOT as a charge of hypocrisy against priests committing sins but as a charge against the abuses of an institution. In other words, I now have to wonder how much of the Truth handed down to me as a Roman Catholic is the Truth of God and how much are truths serving powerful men?

I don’t suppose my deconstructionist notion will get any traction here, and though many people have my same questions without using that word, you should be aware it arises from legitimate distrust. Authority has shown itself to be self-serving, and not just in the Catholic Church, of course, and not just because of the Abuse Scandal. The Sex Abuse and Cover Up were not a few isolated sins of the flesh.

Many Fundamentalist Christians claimed to be preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but many followers have begun to turn away from their churches, too, because the message seems to be serving something other than a loving, forgiving God.

As much as Pope Benedict XVI and other religious leaders have warned us about “moral relativism”, I can’t help but think modernity has given us so much with that ability to see a world without absolutes, if only because those absolutes are so often self-serving for those who claim to speak for God.

What questions would you have wanted to ask?

When McLaren talked about opposing unjust systems, I would have wanted to ask him how this differs from the Social Gospel.

When McLaren talked about bringing the world closer to “May thy will be done on earth…” I would have wanted to ask him how this differs in essence from those who want to eliminate abortion on earth or those who want to prevent gay marriage on earth.

When McLaren responded (quite reasonably) to the question of whether he rejected the label of liberal with a demand that one first define “liberal” I would would have wanted Zoll to be ready with a definition of “liberal” and pin McLaren down a bit on this one.