Published 2 years, 4 months agoWhat is the one question that you wished you were asked more often about the Emergent Church, and how would you answer it? - R. Alan Streett, Editor, Criswell Theological Review
McLaren: I wish people were more interested in the question of how the Religious Right has changed our evangelistic context.
The name “Jesus” is heard differently now than it was thirty years ago because of the amazing “success” of the Religious Right.
If I say “Jesus” to many of my friends, they don’t think of someone who came to forgive sin; they think of people who want to shame people for their sins.
They don’t think of someone who had special good news for the poor; they think of people who want to give every possible advantage to the rich because they think the poor are to blame, largely, for their poverty.
They don’t think of someone who overturned the status quo, but of people who represent the status quo.
They don’t think of someone who talked about turning the other cheek, but of people who defend preemptive violence.
So, I wish people would seek to understand the rising dissatisfaction surrounding how the Religious Right has “rebranded” Christianity, and how Emergent and other conversations like it are seeking to rediscover the Jesus of the Scriptures and fairly represent him and his message to our world.
Search
Subscribe 
You are currently browsing the Bene Diction Blogs On weblog archives.
Related Entries
For blog design, Wordpress or MovableType coding or blog consulting, see cre8d design.
It sounds plausible on the surface, but is it true? How do we know its true? How does Brian McLaren know what many of his friends are thinking when they hear the name Jesus? Perhaps he really does, but how? Did he ask them? Did they volunteer the information? Does he tell us how he came to know their thoughts? And even if he has fairly empirical data on this subject, how representative is this group (“many of my friends”) in comparison with the entire population? Just because the name of Jesus connotes these things to many of his friends, does that mean it necessarily connotes the same things to most people? Is there something unusual or unique about many of his friends that would cause them to react this way? Are we justified in drawing a conclusion about, say, all Western or North American Christians on the basis of anecdotal evidence about one particular author’s circle of friends?
It is obviously undesirable for people to have such reactions to the name of Jesus, but does that mean that the Religious Right is to blame? Have these not always been traditional problems within Christianity? Just how different are the connotations he lists (shaming people for their sins, favoring the rich, defending the status quo, defending preemptive violence) from those promoted to one extent or another by, say, historic Roman Catholicism, historic Eastern Orthodoxy, 19th century liberalism, various Erastian churches, and so on? Were these problems miraculously defeated sometime early in the 20th century, only to be recently reintroduced by the Religious Right?
And if it’s wrong for the Religious Right to shame people for their private moral sins (which I assume is what McLaren is referring to), is it also wrong for the Religious Left to shame Americans for their relative affluence compared to the rest of the world? If it’s wrong for the Religious Right to favor the rich, is it also wrong for the Religious Left to ignore the Right’s concern over confiscatory taxes that destroy businesses and deprive the poor of jobs? If it’s wrong for the Religious Right to defend the capitalist status quo, was it also wrong when, for generations, the Religious Left defended, in one way or another, the brutal Communist status quo? If it is wrong for the Religious Right to defend preemptive violence, is it also wrong for the Religious Left to defend abortion on demand?
If we’re looking for someone to blame, should we not all look into the mirror, instead of pointing at each other? If we’re looking for an explanation for the current problems within Christianity, should we not look further than the scapegoat-du-jour? If we’re looking for reasons why people choose to reject the Christ of Scripture, should we not first acknowledge that it has ever been thus, and that it has more to do with a universal condition of the human heart than with other Christians whose views we find distasteful?
Does your head hurt?
A lot of questions there.:^)
I’ll take 19 questions in 19 sentences as rhetorical.
I hope you got whatever is disturbing you off your chest and you find the answers you are looking for.
He’s correct about a number of inadequacies of the church in western society in general, but by attributing this solely to “the Religious Right,” I’m afraid all that McLaren accomplishes is to demonstrate that he really has no grasp of the actual history of right and left leaning Christianity in the west. He’s much more interested in this monologue in taking down a strawman.
Wow, call me ishmael and Rev. Mike are really stating things that I have been thinking for awhile. Call me Ishmael was very eliquint in rhetorically addressing what I have been thinking. Bene maybe if you took the time to look into these things you will see what myself, Call Me Ishmael and Rev. Mike are talking about. We all are sick and tired of the focus only being on the right and not on all of us with regard to the human condition. For Brian and you and others to focus on one set of problems and not others is a disservice to the Body of Christ and promotes a greater polorization than is otherwise there.
Bene, reread in detail what Call me Ishmael said. I think everybody on the left AND right need to read this. It is very important or we will continue to be what Paul says in relation to the Body of Christ (paraphrase) the hand saying to the eye I have no need of you.
Rev. Mike. You mentioned straw man which I really liked. Could we say that Brian is failing to address the straw man within his camp? Maybe he is trying to tear down one straw man but in the process promoting his own straw man or promoting a straw man that already exists that needs to be tore down?
I think what Call Me Ishmael had to say was civil, and he raised some excellent points. I kind of hope he doesn’t feel the need to respond in nothing but questions next time, that is headache making stuff and not at conducive to conversation.
Good of you to start one, thank you.
You guys knock yourselves out, I don’t know Brian McLaren from the Whip in the Commons - and reading the interview I didn’t see McLaren saying that.
Lest I am being too subtle and ‘Bene stupid,’ I linked to a theological journal (I didn’t look up where or what Criswell is - feel free to educate me) this made sense: “Probably a lot of people in the emergent conversation—like a lot of people not in it—wouldn’t even know what presuppositionalism is. This is where these discussions quickly can become unfruitful and even counterproductive.”
I’m not prepared to debate from the either/or set up, I think what he said in total has some merit. I’ve read McLaren one other time and that was when a minister named Driscoll was obnoxious over at the Ur blog and McLaren responded; long winded but kind. I’ll go look up persuppositionalism.:^)
I think what you are actually referring to are other tpyes like evidentionalism when referring to presuppositionalism. For me when people attack something as presuppositionalism they are neglecting the evidence presented to them for their own predispositions as in what Brian MacLaren does. To me to say my paricular belief or imply that my particular belief is circular seems strange in light of some of what I read from Brian MacLaren.
I like this site in the explaination.However I differ in that I’m both presuppositional AND evidentialist at the same time. I see so much evidence for the support and at the same time recognize that the Bible is self-authenticating.
Sorry here it is:
http://www.frontlinemin.org/apolpresupp.asp
I apologize for stating my thoughts in a stylistically annoying way. Obviously one can over-use rhetorical questions, and I seem to have exceeded the normal quota. I will try to control myself in the future.
Welcome back, I figured that was a hit and run, glad to see it wasn’t.
So, have you found an answer to the haunting question: Is the Hokey Pokey really what it’s all about?;^)