A Generous Orthodoxy or a Dangerous Heterodoxy? [Ron]

Chapter 7—Why I am Post/Protestant (II)

Why Can't We All Just Get Along?

In our last issue, we began by examining the seventh chapter of Brian McLaren's book, A Generous Orthodoxy, entitled "Why I Am Post/Protestant." At the conclusion of that issue I pointed out three areas where McLaren was displeased with the results of the Reformation. By way of quick review, here are the points again:

First, "After protesting Catholic excesses, Protestants started protesting each other."[1]

Second, "This protest frenzy created a kind of market economy for religion, where religion was commodified."[2]

Finally, "Protestants have paid more attention to the Bible than any other group, but sadly, much of their Bible study was undertaken to fuel their efforts to prove themselves right and others wrong (and therefore worthy of protest)."[3]

Protestants Protesting Each Other

McLaren gives the distinct impression that Protestants simply could not be satisfied with a modicum of success so that they began acting like a dysfunctional family, squabbling among themselves. In the realm of possibility I suppose that that is one scenario. It is not the correct one-by a long shot-but it is one. It seems that McLaren is taking this opportunity to whine at the Reformation's expense. He gives the impression that there really wasn't much worthy of discernment and discrimination after we extricated ourselves from those pesky indulgences and that nasty transubstantiation thing. Wrong-very wrong.

Thankfully, the Reformers drew some very clear lines on some very important matters; thankfully theologians throughout the centuries have continued to do that. Were the arguments surrounding the Lord's Supper among the Roman Catholics, Zwinglians, Lutherans, Baptists, and Reformed both necessary and helpful? Yes they were. Were the debates between Arminius, Episcopius, the Remonstrants and the Reformed indispensable discussions? Yes they were.

Were the debates about whether a Christian could serve in the government or military important? Yes. I could go on, but you get the point. Protestants didn't protest each other simply because they liked a good fight. There were biblical principles at stake and the rediscovery of the Bible taught God's people that truth was important. To McLaren and the ECM tribe, truth is a kind of a take it or leave it proposition. The fanatical wing of the movement doesn't even believe that mere mortals can ever have certainty of the truth. So unless you're omniscient, truth is beyond your grasp. Of course, no one really lives that way, but when it comes to religion or ethics there's a paradigm shift. Allow me to explain what I mean. In everyday life are we "forced to the conclusion that all scientific (and other) knowledge is nothing more than a social construction?"[4]

Clearly we aren't and we don't. Just like German liberalism before them, the ECM is falling into the pitfalls of relativistic ethics, which is what all do that have a practical low view of Scripture. Formally, they sing the accolades of the Word of God, but in practice they are much like Bultmann, Fuchs, and Ebeling.

Religion in the Marketplace

Making Christianity-not religion-a commodity is wrong and many such as Groothuis, Meyers, Oden, Pearcey, Wells, and others have written extensively about how the mega-church co-opted theology and followed Madison Avenue techniques to market the Church. The upshot of all this is, as I mentioned in the last issue, that pastors became, by and large, disablers of their congregations. Instead of giving them the preaching of the Word of God, they substituted a lot of "fluff" to keep the troops happy-at least for a while.

Church hopping is fashionable and the disablers have been and continue to be the greatest catalysts of encouragement for such hopping. The modern church-goer is easily and quickly bored. (He is infatuated with the entertainment, but his knowledge of even the most basic truths contained in Scripture is almost non-existent.) Therefore, pastors and their staffs are constantly fishing around trying to find the latest and greatest trend, fad that will mollify the troops for a while longer. For those who call themselves Christians all that is needed is a "nice" building with a "nice" pastor preaching "nice" (read: un-offensive and so easy that they insult the intelligence) sermons to "nice" people.

While I agree with McLaren that the mega-church movement marketed the Church that had to be displeasing to the Almighty, they also, as an added detriment, dumbed-down God's people to an almost unprecedented level of biblical ignorance. For example, I recently read the Foreword by a pastor out here in Southern California that claimed that after seminary and more than twenty-five years as a pastor all that he had learned was that God is love and absolutely just.[5] If that's all a pastor knows, what do you think his congregation knows? At the same time, however, I also believe that McLaren and the ECM are equally guilty of marketing the Church, just in a slightly different manner. They market to a certain age segment-typically there is not a gaggle of octogenarians present at their "gatherings," as Dan Kimball calls them. Their "gatherings" also cater to the whims and desires of these younger people, otherwise they lose them.

As he discusses this point, McLaren accuses the Protestants of both distortion and arrogance.[6] In his usual fashion, he doesn't give any specific examples only "unique features being exaggerated out of all proportion" and "downgrading others." If I want to find true distortion and arrogance I need not necessarily look to the Reformers because McLaren is a ready example of both.

This is not to say that the Protestants never made any mistakes or never crossed the line into excess. Careful study has pointed these types of things out to us. Clearly, the Protestant Reformers were men with feet of clay; but McLaren-all the while claiming to be so eclectic-hasn't yet said a word about Roman Catholic excesses, attitudes, distortions, or arrogance. He has also somehow overlooked the Eastern Orthodox and the Arminians. Of course, he's neutral and above the fray. Uh-huh.

Ascribing Wrong Motives

McLaren's final point is such a malicious distortion that it hardly warrants comment. For someone who purports to be so non-judgmental and "generous" he seems to have his limits: He isn't generous with those who are principled and who disagree with him. It is simply unconscionable to ascribe such motives to biblical scholars and men of God.

It might not have occurred to Mr. McLaren, but a large percentage of people that he's accusing actually were concerned about the spiritual truth that came to God's Church through the Bible. They also believed that serious, detailed exegesis of the original texts would enhance our understanding of God's revealed will to our lives. They believed that if they and others were to live as genuine-might I say authentic?-Christians that they needed the guidance of the Word of God to know what was right and wrong, good and evil.

They thought there was something to the biblical call to grow in discernment and spiritual maturity (Heb. 5:12-14). Their purpose of careful study was not necessarily to prove themselves right and others wrong, but to come to a better knowledge of the Word of God. McLaren's suggestion/accusation is disgusting.

At this point I realize that someone is going to say, "But McLaren does criticize the Roman Catholics as well!" Slightly, ever so slightly. To his mind, the Roman Catholics "haven't cooperated very well" because they acted defensively.[7] Hear the clear difference? The Protestants distorted and were/are arrogant, the Roman Catholics just haven't cooperated very well. They probably need a time out. They also weren't arrogant, they simply acted defensively.

McLaren must have missed Mel Gibson's statement that he is a pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic. That translates into this: I am a Roman Catholic who holds to the decrees of the Council of Trent. Trent holds clear notions on precisely what justification by faith means and that there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church.

Nevertheless, McLaren, being oh so fair and balanced, speaks to us about the "average Roman Catholic" whatever that is. He's grateful that they have admitted that they aren't perfect. McLaren clarifies what he means when he writes, "In fact, your outrage as protester at their past failures compares unfavorably with their present humility in admitting past failures."[8]

McLaren is really bent out of shape about Protestants and "their schmaltzy religious broadcasting or pop-atonement theology."[9] I agree. TBN is ludicrous, but people watch it. Isn't it ironic that evangelicalism has ostensibly "exploded" from the late 1960s until about mid-way in the 1990s, but that Christianity has exerted no noticeable influence over culture in that time frame?

I am just as critical as McLaren-maybe even more so-about modern evangelicalism, but I'm equally concerned about postmodern evangelicalism, because both neglect the gospel. I'm not saying they don't use the word or even use Christian "jargon," but in essence there are striking similarities.

In fact, I'm willing to wager that if you ever could get McLaren to give you a straight answer on his view of the atonement-pop or otherwise-that it also would be a little on the schmaltzy side. If McLaren has a view of Christ's atonement-and every Christian does-would you be surprised if it were just as semi-Pelagian as the Roman Catholic and Arminian view? I wouldn't.

In our next issue, we'll finish this chapter and gird our loins for McLaren's next chapter where he gives us a clear description of how and why he is Liberal/Conservative. Funny.

Pastor Ron Gleason, Ph.D.
Yorba Linda, CA

----------------------------------------------------

[1] Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004) p. 125.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid., 126.
[4] D.A. Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emergent Church, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), p. 108.
[5] Chuck Smith, "Foreword," in George Bryson's The Dark Side of Calvinism, (Santa Ana, CA: Calvary Chapel Press, 2004), p. 7.
[6] McLaren, AGO, 125.
[7] Ibid., 126.
[8] Ibid., 126-127. Italics his.
[9] Ibid., 126.