The Emerging Church- Part 6

We are going to turn our attention now to two books as being representative of how the emerging church works out of their belief systems in their interactions with the Bible and the implications they draw from it for our lives.

The two books I will consider are "A Generous Orthodoxy" by Brian McLaren and "Velvet Elvis" by Rob Bell (And no, I'm not going to create hyperlinks to Amazon.com so you can purchase them!).

I realize that "A Generous Orthodoxy" is a few years old now and that McLaren has written more since then, but I use it because it has been one of the most influential books among emergents (we will see its influence clearly on Bell as we look at Velvet Elvis) and its influence is still widely felt. I also realize that Bell has refused to be labeled as "emergent" but I believe that this is for pragmatic "political" reasons only. When you read Bell, when you note who he claims to be his main influences, and when you note who he has as guest speakers at his own church, it is clear where he is coming from. If the emergent shoe fits, he should wear it.

Let's start with McLaren and then we will jump back and forth between the two books. (And let me start by saying that my critique was helped by the reviews of Doug Wilson and Dale VanDyke).

We are going to jump right in at page 68 of Chapter One where McLaren says:

While I believe that actual miracles can and do happen (though I notice they sometimes create nearly as many problems as they solve, and so I see why they aren't given "on demand"), I am sympathetic with those who believe otherwise, and I applaud their desire to live out the meaning of the miracle stories even when they don't believe the stories really happened as written.

First of all, this a denial of the integrity of, not only the Word of God, but of Jesus Himself and of the Holy Spirit who inspired those very words of Scripture. How can anyone be sympathetic with such a stance? At what point does your sympathy stop and do you begin to resist their doubts? Are you sympathetic with those who doubt that Jesus was born of a virgin? Are you sympathetic with those who doubt the resurrection of Christ? If not, why not? How can you pick and choose which points of doubt which you are sympathetic to? And if so, then your faith, according to Paul, is in vain (1 Cor. 15:14).

At the beginning of chapter 2 (pg. 77), McLaren assures us: I am a Christian because I have confidence in Jesus Christ- in all his dimensions (those I know, and those I don't). I trust Jesus. I think Jesus is right because I believe God was in Jesus in an unprecedented way.

I have discovered that, as you read emergent writers, you must read their words as if they were politicians. You can never be assured that you know what the meaning of "is" is. Reading these sentences reminds me of this caution. What does McLaren mean by "in all his dimensions" or "in an unprecedented way"? The first time I read them, these words did not strike me as particularly notable (especially in comparison to the other things he says- except for the fact that that they beg the question- what is your confidence founded upon if not the assurance that the word of God is accurate in all that it says?) but now I see them differently.

Having read much of what McLaren has written and said, and I do want to be cautious here and acknowledge that God alone is judge, but I don't see these words as a the words of a believer in Christ the way in which we, evangelicals would define being a believer in Christ. These are the words, it seems to me, of someone who sees Jesus on the level of a g0d-enlightened newage guru. Think about this- what genuine believer that you know of speaks of Jesus like this? Consider the quote in Part 5 of McLaren's answer to what the Gospel is. Is that the answer of someone who really believes?

Well, on page 82 McLaren apologizes for using masculine pronouns to speak of God. He says that he avoids their use as much as he can because "God is not male." He says that in affirming this, he is following the footsteps of men like C.S. Lewis (pg. 83). Of course it was not only C.S. Lewis that affirmed that God is not male in the strict sense of the word- EVERYONE affirms this. But McLaren uses Lewis as a way to lend credibility to what he says next:

The masculine biblical imagery of "Father" and "Son" also contribute to the patriarchalism or chauvinism that has too often characterized Christianity.

That being the case, I sure am glad (my tongue is planted firmly in cheek) that McLaren has apologized for something that neither Jesus nor the Holy Spirit seemed to see a need to apologize for! I guess McLaren is more sensitive to the feelings of our sisters in Christ than their heavenly Father is!

It is striking to me that McLaren sees the use of the masculine pronoun to speak of God as such a danger while being sympathetic to those who deny that the miracles of the Scriptures actually happened. Is there not something wrong here?

What is striking even further is that after apologizing for what Jesus clearly did and affirmed, McLaren wants to convince us that Jesus is Lord:

Jesus asserts that he is the leader who gives commands (not our wish-granting genie, taking commands from us). He has authority; we answer to him, not the reverse. His commands should be followed wholeheartedly (it's those who actually "walk the walk" by practicing His teachings who are blessed, Jesus says, not just those who "talk the talk" by mouthing "Lord, Lord). As the saying goes, there is one Lord, and you are not it. (pg. 92).

This is an interesting comment for him to make considering that he has just apologized for what Jesus clearly does. Should we not infer from this that if Jesus were in the room with McLaren that he would have a "heart to heart" with Jesus about cleaning up His vocabulary? Why is it that McLaren will use Jesus' teachings to try to justify only the things that fit his own personal (enlightened might he say?) take on things, yet will contradict Jesus on the things which do not fit his own view- all while saying that "he (Jesus) has authority and we answer to him, not the reverse"?

McLaren criticizes today's church saying: we developed theological systems that taught us how to avoid many of Jesus' teachings and reinterpret those we couldn't avoid. (pg. 95).

Now wait a minute here fella! Isn't that exactly what McLaren has been guilty of doing thus far? "Don't want to believe in Jesus' miracles? That's okay- I sympathize. Don't like Jesus calling God "Father" or referring to Him as "He"? Me neither, that doesn't fly in today's world."

What gives? McLaren can't have it both ways.

Like I said, you have to read them like you are reading a politician.