McLaren and the god of conversation
January 26th, 2006A lot has been written over the past few days about Brian McLaren’s remarkably weak stance on the issue of homosexuality. Others have analyzed the issue well, including Steve McCoy, Joe Carter and Doug Wilson.
I’m no expert on the whole Emerging Church Movement. Quite honestly, until I started blogging about six months ago, I had read very little about the ECM. I’m still not sure I understand the movement that well, but from what I’ve read, I have reached one conclusion:
McLaren and many of his followers seem to be more interested in “conversation” than they are in taking any kind of stand for truth. In a way, “dialogue” itself almost seems to be a god for them.
Consider McLaren’s statement about the issue of homosexuality:
“Perhaps we need a five-year moratorium on making pronouncements. In the meantime, we’ll practice prayerful Christian dialogue, listening respectfully, disagreeing agreeably. When decisions need to be made, they’ll be admittedly provisional. We’ll keep our ears attuned to scholars in biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology, and related fields. Then in five years, if we have clarity, we’ll speak; if not, we’ll set another five years for ongoing reflection.”
This is just one example. Everytime you read something from a lot of these ECM folks, the words “dialogue,” “discussion” and “conversation” permeate their language. To argue, like McLaren does, that we need further “dialogue” about what Scripture says regarding homosexuality shows that he’s more interested in dialogue for the sake of dialogue than he is in the truth of Scripture.
I’m all for having dialogue and discussion about important topics on which there seems to be room for interpretation. But on issues like homosexuality (and adultery, and divorce, and pride, and a host of other sins), maybe what we need is the moral courage to proclaim boldly the clear truth of Scripture — and the saving power of Christ — instead of the wishy-washiness of more conversation.
This guy (McLaren) gets more and more out of touch with reality every time he speaks. As you say, we don’t need to ‘dialogue’ or ‘discuss’ settled issues. If God’s word addresses it directly, its not up for debate. The reason these issues are not settled is not because the Bible is unclear but because of wolves among the flock like McLaren deliberately muddying the water.
I found these online:
BPNews.net on ‘Emerging Church Movement’ from Mar 23, 2005
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=20420
>In a book entitled “Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church,” which is scheduled to be published in June by Zondervan, theologian D.A. Carson defines the Emerging Church Movement as a group of people who believe the church must use new modes of expressing the Gospel as western culture adopts a postmodern mindset.
—
Q & A: Rogers on ministry, the SBC, and post-retirement - from Oct. 6, 2005
http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/5148.article
>On churches being relevant.
“I tell these youngsters, adapt yourself to the means you can use – the Internet, you can Google, you can cell phone, you can email, you can use image magnification, all of those are fine, but they are only means to get the job done. The means change and we ought to be wise … The methods don’t change. The methods are in the Bible by precept, example. … What are the methods? Prayer, evangelism, truth, integrity, labor, fellowship; these things are, in the first century and twenty-first century. … I am trying to say to these guys, learn the methods. Yes, use the means, but there are a lot of men, Jim, who are trying to stay up, to be ‘relevant,’ who are messing with the methods. Don’t mess with the methods. They are jettisoning the methods. You can’t do that. Use all the means you want, but you had better be certain, that your ministry is biblical.”
When I read about this “moratorium” McLaren proposes, I have to think, “how long has this guy been a pastor, to not yet have this issue figured out?” I mean, think about it — he makes the issue of determining the Biblical morality of homosexuality sound as if it is absolutely critical, yet he doesn’t seem to indicate that he has done any extensive exegetical or historical research on it. You would think that he has spent large amounts of time on it, given its great importance.
The more I hear about Maclaren, the more I understand how the Laodicean church became lukewarm.
I like some of McLaren’s work. But for the life of me, it seems like the last thing he would rather do is to come to some sort of conclusion on any issue. Is there anything that is not up for grabs with him? I wonder how he would respond if someone asked him if Jesus was the only way to the Father? Well, perhaps we need a 5 year moratorium on that question!
For all the hype, McLaren will not even be a footnote in the history of the church. McLaren is a prisoner to the myth of influence.