Read Questions and Answers that were asked during the month of April...
Brian,
My question is about your experience with Eastern Orthodoxy... (as in Greek, Russian, Antiochian, Coptic, Syrian). How has Eastern Orthodox theology influenced you? Would you say that emergent theology is more closely related to that of the Orthodox church than to the Evangelical church?
Answer: I write a bit about this in A Generous Orthodoxy, and you’ll find other questions about this in previous monthly Q & A’s. Certain aspects of Eastern Orthodox theology have been very helpful to me – especially their soteriology, Christology, and understanding of the Trinity. And I have been enriched by their approach to spiritual formation as well.
Brian,
In some of my readings, both of books authored by you and others, I have read about Christian mystics. Who are the predominant Christian mystic authors?
Answer: If you pick up Richard Foster’s “Celebration of Discipline” and his other work via Renovare, you’ll get a great exposure to the Christian mystical tradition. “The Spiritual Formation Workbook” is a great resource too. Tony Jones’ “The Sacred Way” is also a sturdy introduction to contemplative practices.
Hi Brian,
…I want my sister to know what it means to follow Christ. I don't think she could easily understand the language that we would use to discuss what this means in terms of being a New Kind of Christian. My question is, is there anything in the works for teenagers? I know you have a few kids, and I'm sure you can empathize with where I'm coming from.
…She doesn't need to become a "new" kind of Christian, she just needs to know what it's like to follow Christ in her culture. Is there a way we can put the thoughts behind ANKOC and AGO into a more elementary language? Maybe boil it down to the basics and look at the world that teens are growing up in?
Answer: This is a great question. I would love to find time to do this myself, but in the meantime, I encourage readers who like to write to consider giving this a try.
Brian,
Do you believe that the Bible (the autograph) is completely without error (i.e. perfectly as God intended)?
Do you feel it is important to teach a historical/grammatical/literary context of the scripture?
Do you believe that the scripture could mean something to one person while it means something completely different to another (reader response interpretation)? Or, does the scripture have one meaning with a variety of different ways to apply it to a person’s life?
Answer: I have such high confidence in Scripture that I think it’s wisest to say about Scripture what it says about itself. I believe it is inspired by God, profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in right living, to equip God’s people for good works … and it is not subject to private interpretation. You’ll find some good dialogue on this question at anewkindofconversation.com. See Myron Penner’s important postings and subsequent discussion.
Dear Brian,
…I was also moved by the description of judgment and the purification of our lives to their Godly actions, to their Christ-essence, at the end of time. I am wondering though if there isn't a sense in which judgment, for those of us who are in Christ, has not already happened? Isn't there a sense in which God already sees us as only as Christ and the Christ work we are doing...and does not "remember", or hold to our account, the actions of the old man in us, though they continue? Isn't it that hope, that certainty, that our sins are forgiven, that pulls us forward into God's future where we are fully conformed to the image of Christ?
Answer: When I read your question, I think of Paul’s words from Romans 8: “There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus.” Yet Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians about all of our work being judged “by fire.” So I agree – yes, we can have confidence that we are forgiven, yet we live with a sense of final accountability – not in danger of condemnation, of course, since we are “saved by grace.”
Dear Mr McLaren,
…In one of your footnotes to A Generous Orthodoxy you describe the Enlightenment as 'anti-religious in tone' and 'dismissive of spirituality' (p. 269). Obviously you're not here offering a general interpretation of Enlightenment history, but I do think it is symptomatic of 'emergent' thinking on this period of history in general.
First, your association of Voltaire with the Enlightenment is a standard one (and fair enough). This has been firmly advocated by Peter Gay in his work The Enlightenment: an interpretation, and the association of the Enlightenment with what he calls le petite troupeau des philosophes.
Here is the jist of my point. Emergent thinkers seem to view the Enlightenment as a monolith, characterizing it as reductionist, rationalist, irreligious, etc. However, recent scholarship has questioned this interpretation (especially J. G.
Pocock on the English Enlightenment), noting that it seems to pertain only to the French Enlightenment, and even then maybe not so well. Instead recent interpreters (who no doubt will be challenged in turn) stress the plurality and complexity of the Enlightenment, recognizing the difficulty of using the definite article: the Enlightenment. Instead, we can now speak of French, British, Scottish, and Italian Enlightenments, etc. And Magisterial, Radical, and conservative Enlightenments.
My question is, then, do you think this would require a revision of some of your/Emergent's historical contentions? And, perhaps, do you think your long view of history bears remarkable affinity to the Scottish Enlightenment's 'stadial theory', which, incidentally, was transported to American universities in the eighteenth century?
Answer: First, thanks for your note. It reminds me (and readers here) that all of these issues are so complex, and whenever we try to simplify through generalizations, we tend to create some level of inaccuracy. What you say about there being many versions of the Enlightenment makes really good sense – just as I try to remind people that there are many postmodernisms. Probably that fact doesn’t require major revisions of most of our historical contentions – but even so, it reminds us to be as careful and qualified as we can. I’m not familiar with “stadial theory” – I’d love to learn more. Your helpful question and comment reminds us that “The Enlightenment” (like a lot of things) can become an abstraction far removed from the reality behind it, which is a story that took place over many decades, over many countries, involving many different people with many different perspectives. Thanks for this reminder.
Dear Brian,
…My question to you is: How do you see different denominations (and non-denominations) coming together help to fuel this fire of truth in this time of hatred, exclusion, and twisting of the truth in the name of God and Jesus, and how can we help? Are there organizations, web sites, etc. that you would recommend perusing?
Answer: Ironically, denominational structures can be means of division – but they can also be means of connection. Denominations can bring people together – and then link to one another (relationally or structurally, however) which in turn helps people have connections they otherwise would not. So much comes down to attitude – do we have an attitude of conciliation, or one of suspicion and judgment? Emergentvillage.com is one great place to begin to work toward increasing connection.
Dear Sir,
I am living in Tulsa, Oklahoma and I am curious about your thoughts on Carlton Pearson's theology and universalism in general. I love the theories of the Emergent movement, but am concerned about the need for a line drawn between a Generously Orthodox church and universalism, or even the so called "Gospel of Inclusion" which says that all are saved through the blood of Christ without need for repentance, acceptance, belief, or anything else! I applaud the sensitivity of your book and am behind the thoughts of the Emerging movement, but I am concerned in regards to this issue. This is especially relevant for emerging Christians in Tulsa.
Answer: I don’t yet know Carlton Pearson or his ideas on this subject, so I can’t comment. In a few of my books, I suggest that I think universalism, like exclusivism, is a noble attempt to answer what I think is the wrong question. The question that is more on track – in my opinion – is “how can we work with God for the kingdom of God,” or “how can we make disciples of Jesus who will live and work as agents of the kingdom of God.” This approach calls for repentance, acceptance, belief, and a lot more … and it also inhibits us from being tempted to make too many judgments on the eternal destiny of other people.
Brian,
I am resonating with your ideas after reading two of your books so far. Discovered you in TIME mag. Thanks for unlocking the new / old. Been through 35 years of Pentecostal and Charismatic before I hit the wall. Since then I am in a whole new world, sort of free from the cultural conventions of Christianity, finding an easier relational ride with God and man. I don't have much doubt that the church is at a threshold.
I found church history to be a big clue. There seemed to be a two-millennial compression and expansion thing happening. Another clue is that in all the zillions of sermons I heard in my experience (and preached as well), I never heard one on being a peacemaker. Learning that is now my number one resolution. The modern church seemed to skip over that one very handily.
Answer: Thanks for your note. I include it hoping that it will stimulate some pastors to preach some sermons on peacemaking!
Brian,
Just wondering how much, if at all, Karl Barth has influenced your thinking, specifically in relation to the new book coming out and questions of hell, salvation, and the finality and decisiveness of Christ's work on the cross. Are you a Barth fan?
Answer: I am a Barth fan, both directly (what I’ve read from Church Dogmatics) and indirectly (because Barth deeply influenced so many scholars who influence me).
Dear Mr. Mclaren,
First, you say that there isn't an English pronoun to express a personal neutral being that God is. Yet, why do you gloss over the fact that there is a personal pronoun in Greek? If the Bible writers wanted to use "it" in a personal way, they could have. Why mistranslate the Bible by refusing to use the Bible's words? (And no I am not talking about the Holy Spirit here; I am referring to God the Father in the Trinity).
Secondly, why do you employ CS Lewis into your court (74), when pronouns matter a great deal to him. Lewis says: "Since God is in fact not a biological being and has no sex, what can it matter whether we say He or She, Father or Mother, Son or Daughter?" "But Christians think that God Himself has taught us how to speak of Him. To say that it does not matter is to say either that all the masculine imagery is not inspired, is merely human in origin, or else that, though inspired, it is quite arbitrary and unessential….It is an argument…against Christianity." "Christians think that God Himself has taught us how to speak of Him. To say that it does not matter is to say either that all the masculine imagery is not inspired, is merely human in origin, or else that, though inspired, it is quite arbitrary and unessential….It is an argument…against Christianity."
(Priestesses in the Church, God in the Dock).
I am not a conservative fundamentalist Christian by any means.
Actually, I enjoyed much of your book. I consider myself a more Erasmusian/Pascalian/Kierkegaardian Christian than anything. However, I do not think that making God's image less masculine really does justice to God, our poetic groom.
Answer: Thanks for your comment. I had never noticed that quote from Lewis. Yes – masculine images are used for God. And so are feminine ones (in at least a few places). Yes, God is our poetic groom, but God is also the one in whose image both male and female are made. The image of groom (like the images of judge, shepherd, etc.) tells us much – but never stops being an image, and should never be the singular image we use, since each image corrects and limits and supplements and enriches others. I’d recommend C. S. Lewis poem-prayer, “A Footnote to All Prayers” to see his other thoughts on our images for God. (I quote it in part in A Generous Orthodoxy, but if you google for it, you’ll find it many places online.)
Brian-…I have lived in the pacific northwest all of my life pretty much and the issue of homosexuality has always an issue that I've had to struggle with (as far as friends, relatives and so on). I have read your responses and seen your clip from LKL about homosexual marriage and about the benefits that are possible with that. My question (please forgive if it's an ungenerous one) is what are your church's and your personal views on homosexuals being members of the church and leaders (clergy or lay)? Please understand I ask this question not with the intention of excluding those churches who disagree or agree with your position (or mine for that matter), but rather your opinion is one I hold in very high regard and would like to add your take on the situation to add another voice to the chorus of the struggle within my head. (No I'm not mentally ill just conflicted)
Answer: A lot of us are conflicted on this subject, just as you are. I haven’t fully formulated a good response to this question, although I hope to do so before too long. Our church is also in process on this issue. There’s no question in our mind that homosexuals should be welcomed and treated like any other human being made in God’s image. The problems come in how to wisely and respectfully deal with the relevant Biblical passages – and in how to deal with people who disagree with whatever policy we take. Rushing to judgment – like rushing to war – can create serious problems, just as failing to grapple with issues can … so we need to have patience and grace with one another, just as you suggest in your note.