Hi Brian,
Saw this review of A Generous Orthodoxy at amazon.com. I have my ideas as to how I would respond, but I'm wondering how you would respond.
(Unlike some of the others who didn't care for your book, this guy seems thoughtful about it.)
Answer: I’ll insert a couple of comments in the review below, like this: "COMMENT:"
Generous Orthodoxy but Autocratic Methodology, March 7, 2005
Brian McLaren, the founding pastor at Cedar Ridge Community Church, provides an insider's view of emergent Christianity that is based on grace instead of judging others, and based on accepting all others as neighbors instead of competing between denominations and creeds. He is an insightful leader who deserves our attention.
However, the book falls short of accomplishing all that it should. Although McLaren aims at broadening the scope of thinking, he displays a nagging narrowness in his own. In proposing a methodology of appreciating the beauty of God's creation without considering logic, he fails to see the beauty in the logic of God's creation. He treats this as an either/or issue rather than a both/and issue.
COMMENT: I’m sorry this reader felt I was rejecting logic. I can’t recall ever making a statement to that effect, although I can see why the reader would think so, since I try to redress what I perceive as an overbalance in that area. He/she might find my book “Finding Faith” more satisfying in this regard.
In attempting to remove divisiveness from the church, he replaces doctrinal divisiveness with methodological divisiveness. While promoting harmony and tolerance, McLaren is intolerant towards everyone outside of his methodology. For example, he is not very generous towards people who appreciate systematic theology. It seems that he functions with right brain dominance, and discredits the approach to faith used by those who function with left brain dominance. The underlying message of the book seems to be - If you're not like me, you're wrong. He is refreshingly open minded regarding orthodoxy, but narrow minded regarding personal learning styles. I think that it would be possible to write a book that is generous in both dimensions rather than just one.
Apparently he assumes that logic destroys love even though it is an approach to studying God's creation. This attitude is unfortunate because the postmodern movement needs diversity in gifts in order to be effective. The heart cannot say to the head, "I don't need you!"
He argues against trusting the Bible as the authoritative documentation of doctrine, and he argues against using logical discernment as a means of seeking truth. So his solution is to abandon systematic theology and to seek truth in the poetic beauty of God's creation. That sounds good, but feelings alone without discernment have resulted in some strange belief systems that label themselves as "Christian". My personal experience is that when a group of "Christians" drift away from doctrinal dependence on the Bible, they splinter away from the body of Christianity. McLaren's approach may have an effect in practice that is opposite of the intent of his theory. Whereas Christianity has maintained some balance between logical and emotive components, and McLaren feigns support for balance, he seems to promote a disruption in that balance away from logic. He attempts to distinguish between good compromise and bad compromise, but I believe that he is compromising the pursuit of truth for the sake of unity.
COMMENT: The writer overstates and exaggerates my intent, if not my actual words. For example, I would never argue against trusting the Bible as an authoritative documentation of doctrine, although I would urge us against naivete about the role of interpretation in extracting doctrinal statements from Scripture. I would never argue against using logical discernment as a means of seeking truth. I don’t see systematic theology and poetics as an either-or proposition, but as a both/and. I would never call for feelings without discernment! I don’t say that “if you’re not like me, you’re wrong.” I often find people doing this sort of thing – pushing my words to an extreme position I would never take. If someone did say the things the writer accuses me of saying, I would definitely side with the writer!