Some may need to forgive the analogy, but figuring out the theological position(s) of the emergent movement must be what it is like trying to catch a greased pig. In this recent Q&A with Out of Ur, Brian McLaren talks a bit about his views on hell and judgment. There is much in what he says to be affirmed and echoed. He believes that at times the church has become hung up on the details of hell a bit too much to the detriment of ethical and kingdom living in the here and now. He says such things as:
…if we can identify some people as God’s enemies, hated by God for all eternity, we can find ourselves directly disobeying Jesus’ clear teachings about loving our neighbors and our enemies.
This next excerpt is interesting for two reasons. First, on the surface, most of it is obviously true and I can imagine even some hard-line brimstone preachers agreeing with it:
For example, I think God will be far more displeased by our carelessness toward the poor, or by our lack of peacemaking, or by our unrecognized racism and nationalism than he will be about whether you’re an exclusivist or not.
The second reason is it interesting is its slipperiness. In a style overwhelmingly typical of emergent types, McLaren constructs a false dichotomy, hence labeling and nearly slandering his detractors, and inserts his political views to boot. And all of this comes in a semantic package that reminds me of the chocolate-coated pill in The Princess Bride: it makes it go down easier. Often we find ourselves swallowing the pill and nodding in agreement before we are able to dissect the dichotomy.
There is absolutely no warrant to insinuate that exclusivism is inherently incompatible with such things as peacemaking, fighting racism, and care of the poor. McLaren accuses old-line evangelicals of living in a myopic world, and one cannot but help get the feeling that in reaction, McLaren’s world is no less so.
To add vaseline to the oil, McLaren’s initial reaction to the issue of hell and judgment is pastoral but evasive:
… in the end I’d rather turn our attention from the questions WE think are important to the question JESUS thinks is most important.
The obvious implication? People who believe in and teach a real hell and the need for a real decision for Christ are not in-step with the concerns of the very Jesus himself. Matthew 7:23, 8:12, 22:13, 25:46, Mark 3:29, and Luke 16, to name a few passages, disagree. And the thread through them all was summed up by Paul in Romans 10:9-10.
The theological path forward is not about vilifying traditional evangelicalism. It will doubtless involve some painful reflection from time to time, but there is an old saying about babies and bath water that needs heeding.
4 comments:
Phil -
Just a couple of thoughts. I agree that the dichotomy is in no way necessary - peacemaking is not incompatible with exclusivism and vice versa - but I think McLaren is commenting on what has actually happened to evangelicalism of late, at least on a surface level. There is no dichotomy, but many conservative believers have focused much more heavily on doctrines like exclusivism to the detriment of taking real action to help the poor, end conflict or combat racism. This is obviously not true in every circumstance - evangelicals have been on the offensive about getting involved in Darfur, for example - but it is the general perception.
But like you, I find McLaren's stubborn refusal to actually say something concrete about doctrine, salvation, hell or exclusivism quite frustrating and certainly seems to indicate that Emergent is in for some real trouble down the road.
For some irony, according to wikipedia, Bono is not the president of the World Bank:
"Later in the year, before Paul Wolfowitz was chosen to replace James Wolfensohn as president of the World Bank, Bono was spoken about as a serious candidate for the position. United States Secretary of the Treasury John Snow said about Bono on the ABC news talk program This Week: "He's somebody I admire. He does a lot of good in this world of economic development." The selection process for the position is by member governments, however, and his selection was considered unlikely."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bono
Funny Bono should come up - the mother of one of my friends just ran into Bono in a New York City airport (dressed very shabbily, like apparently he tends to do). (Another weird coincidence - a U2 song just started playing on my random list. I'm sure there's a supernatural explanation). Anyway, she recognized him, went up to him, and thanked him for the good he's been doing recently, especially in relation to African debt relief, etc. He politely thanked her, and then, with a look of concern, said "Listen, I'm glad you're in favor of good things like that, but can I ask you - do you know Jesus?" She told him that she's a teacher at a Christian high school, and he insisted on writing her class a little note, telling them to focus on Jesus in their lives. Pretty cool! (The smart-aleck in me would at this point say "and that is all the proof one needs that Bono is the anti-Christ, since, obviously, the anti-Christ would want to appear to be Christian - like a wolf in sheep's clothing." Luckily, I am firmly resisting my inner smart-aleck).
Regarding McLaren - though I fully agree with Phil's point about his general slipperiness on doctrinal matters, I wonder if in the second quotation, he isn't just trying to point out the imbalance in current Evangelicalism's focus. Do Evangelicals spend time, effort, and money on the whole spectrum of "Christian issues," or only a select few - to the exclusion of things that ought to have higher priority in the Christian life? IF (a big if) he is not saying "inclusivism is fine" but merely "it'd be wrong to give up exclusivism - but perhaps a greater fault to hold on to exclusivism WHILE at the same time giving up a whole host of other important Christian duties," then I'd be inclined to agree with him about such an imbalance (although not, in my view, an imbalance in which too much focus is put on exclusivism - I think the Christian Church needs to have that as a very high priority, given the current cultural climate.)
The imbalance, I think, is in not giving enough focus to other important things. Evangelicals need to realize that the world will see Christ through our living example - if our living example says that the only important issues are abortion, gay marriage, the Pledge of Allegiance, defending a president's dishonesties because "he's a Christian," and being able to say "Christmas" around December, then our culture can hardly be blamed for rejecting our invitation to join the church.
Wow! Just a tip to you bloggers looking for traffic but don't want to "go political"-talk about the Emergent movement or one of its leaders. Thanks to you all for your thoughts!
I must admit, Bono as the Anti-christ is a new one to me. While I share some of Jeff's general concerns with emergent theology and ecclesiology, I would not say it is the biggest movement ever in Christianity. And, Tim, thanks for the clarification on the whole World Bank thing...I was worried there for a minute.
As for McLaren's apparent general disposition toward escatology and this-world ethics, I am giving up guessing what he is trying to get at. Like most of you alluded to, he really doesn't get at anything in the interview. The game of charitable attribution should come to an end at some point, especially for someone who is so widely published, interviewed and listened to. Why not take him at face value? He is given more platforms than most to clarify his theological positions and doesn't do so. I also imagine that his form of "irenic" theology is pleasing to many who also don't want to say anything too specific about difficult, but biblically defined, issues.
In an ironic, almost postmodern sounding, reaction to his interview, I thought, "the answer is BOTH/AND, not EITHER/OR."
Additionally, I believe there is a good theological argument to be made for the warrant of this-world ethics being grounded in eschatological realities. In other words, it might be the case that if one wants to ignore or dismiss entirely "end-times" issues, they are going to have a hard time grounding their ethics.
One of the scriptural themes that startled me the most as a young Bible teacher was the direct link Paul and others make between life after death and the shape of our lives in the here-and-now. (I know it looks bad to make that kind of assertion and not cite anything, but I don't have the time to hunt a lot of that down at the moment-if something strikes me, I will return with a triumphant flare.) Bringing God's kingdom to bear on earth is a mandate that surely many segments of the Christian church has missed on, and it is good for us to re-engage with social issues. But all these actions are a "foretaste of glory divine," not the glory itself. When God's will is done here on earth it is like it is in heaven: it is not heaven.
And Christians have always had their political "wish-lists." Some of the things Brian listed are very important, and others are, at the most, indicative of other important issues. A whole other set of Christians defended a president who was arguably a rapist, certainly an adulterer, and legally a perjurer. A wise man once said there is nothing new under the sun.
Post a Comment