I finished this book yesterday. In my opinion it is a great read.
Yes, it is provocative. Yes, many will find it troubling.
But if we are truly generous with the author and seek to understand his intentions (which I believe are to make us think rather than answer every question we might have) then I think we can all greatly profit from this book.
Coming from an evangelical background (and still making a transition to a post-evangelical understanding) many of his remarks concerning evangelicals and their relationship to the world and sinners stung particularly bad.
Also helpful are McLaren's discussion of the Bible, missional/incarnational theology, and the environment.
In seminary I took an excellent class from Dr. Danny Carroll called Reading the Bible from the 2/3rds World. This class was the first time someone ripped the lenses I read the Bible with out from in front of my eyes. I found that my interpretation of Scripture and what I believed to be biblical where greatly influenced by my presuppositions, tradition, culture, gender, and so on.
McLaren's book, if you will allow it, will do the same for you. It will remove the spectacles you see Christianity, Jesus, liberals, conservatives, God, the Bible, etc. from your face. And though it may seem scary or impossible now, you may actually like the view better.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A rural pastor reflects on life, faith, and the church.
About Me
- Steve
- I pastor First Christian Church in Wray, CO, a rural farming community on the northeastern plains of Colorado.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2005
(218)
-
▼
May
(25)
- Another great quote from Dr. Fernando's article
- Panda's Ponderings [Out of this World Dutchman]: A...
- Tornado warning
- Megachurch google sightseeing: First Presbyterian ...
- Brian McLaren: A Brotherly Critique and Response t...
- 4 Ways Blogging Can Change Your Church
- Crosswalk.com - United States Has More Megachurche...
- Westling in church for outreach
- A Generous Orthodoxy
- Creativity, Innovation, Team Building, Leadership,...
- ICTHUS: Calvin College Faculty to George Bush - NO
- Wray Eagles
- Megachurch google sightseeing: Faith Bible Chapel
- Frodo the leader
- Jean-Luc Picard was my favorite!
- Reverend Mike's House of Homiletic Hash: Yet Anoth...
- Megachurch google sightseeing: Woodman Valley Chapel
- Megachurch google sightseeing: Cherry Hills Commun...
- Megachurch google sightseeing: New Life Church
- Google Sightseeing
- Phil Mitchell and CU - The outing of a conservative
- Beyond Foundationalism
- Richard Foster on SermonCentral.com
- Rice and beans and National Day of Prayer
- Worship set and what music does to your body
-
▼
May
(25)
13 comments:
What is "post evangelical understanding"?
Hey Steve-
Thanks for reading the blog!
Like most terms that have "post" in them it is difficult to define and many people you talk to will have different answers.
Here's how Dave Tomlinnson describes it in his book The Post Evangelical:
"To be post-evangelical is to take as given many of the assumptions of the evangelical faith, while at the same time moving beyond its perceived limitations."
Most people who are post-evangelicals or are moving in that direction feel alienated by the evangelical subculture and political platforms.
For further inquiry into this check out Tomlinson's book.
Grace and peace,
Steve
Not sure if I want to spend money on a book like this. I am, however, curious what you mean by....."assumptions of the evangelical faith". Are these "assumptions" actual truth taught in the bible, or legalistic application brought on by a religious organization?
And what are these "perceived limitations"? I am trying to understand this lingo. Jesus Himself was very limiting on His way to God....you know. Only through Him. I know that in this age of inclusiveness and tolerance, that the bible seems very counterculture, and "unreasonable". But, as you know, in 1 Cor ..... the message of the cross is foolishness to those that are perishing"...
So, is all this "hand wringing" just a way to wiggle around the truth of the bible, or to reject legalistic application?
You surely are not discarding the truth of heaven and hell...of the death penalty we have, and the need for repentance....for only trusting and receiving the gift of eternal life in heaven can we be saved?
Hey steve-
Assumptions of the evangelical faith...again from Tomlinson's book "salvation through faith in Christ's atoning work; supremecy of Scripture over all other sources of authority; importance of declaring the gospel to those who do not believe" to name a few. Others are more cultural: no drinking, no smoking, no gambling, no TV, no secular music, no movies, no swearing, etc. Obviously not all evangelicals fall into all of these cultural categories.
As to moving beyond perceived limitations, many post-evangelicals are questioning words used to describe the Bible by evangelicals such as authority, inerrancy, infallibility, revelation, objective, absolute, and literal. As McLaren says in A Generous Orthodoxy "hardly anyone notices the irony of resorting to the authority of extrabiblical words and concepts to justify one's belief in the Bible's ultimate authority." Theologically, post-evangelicals are wrestling with the meaning of the atonement. Jesus and Scripture seem to have a lot more in mind than just personal salvation by substitutionary atonement (though the salvation of individuals by faith in Christ is definitely included and important!).
Post-evangelicals also question many of the cultural values and practices of evangelicals such as unquestioned materialism, uncritical consumerism, poor stewardship of creation, uncritical support of republican party politics, and lack of concern for the poor and oppressed (social justice). Obviously these are gross over-generalizations but it's a starting point.
In your opinion...what exactly does this mean? "extrabiblical words and concepts to justify one's belief in the Bible's ultimate authority"
Scripture is clear as to the "ultimate authority" of itself. You know...all scripture is "God breathed". The bible has been investigated and critiqued more that any written word ever, and it has passed the test. The sheer number of manuscripts, the eyewitness accounts, the verification of historical facts, the corroboration by secular writers, psychological analysis of the characters of the bible, and all the changed lives due to the truth found in the Word.
What exactly are these "extrabiblical words" you are talking about?
The extrabiblical words I believe McLaren is referring to are these: authority, inerrancy, infallibility, revelation, objective, absolute, and literal.
The Bible does say it is God-breathed. I do not think McLaren is questioning the usefulness of Scripture or its place as the formative text for Christians. What he is questioning is the necessity for the arguments resulting from enlightenment, modern thinking that require one to argue for the doctrine of say inerrancy when the Bible itself makes no such argument.
I assume that you agree with this emerging church philosophy. This Mclaren guy seems steeped in the stuff.
Well I'm not sure what you mean by words such as absolute. This certainly doesn't mean that the words of Jesus that only through Him is THE only way to heaven.....is not absolutely true? And are you absolutely sure of this?
Also, what in the world do you mean by the "usefulness of scripture"? God's revealed Word seems now to be relative in usefulness? Sounds pretty worldly to me. Aren't we supposed not to conform this the pattern of this world?
And what does this mean...Scripture's place as the "formative text" for Christians. If you don't use Scripture as God's Word and truth...then how do you really know that you are a Christian? If you haven't repented of your sins that have earned you death sentence in Hell, and received the forgiveness of Christ and the salvation only He can give....then what are your qualifications for a Christian? Surely you know that saying you are a Christian certainly doesn't make it so.
If you can pick and choose what scripture to believe in, then how do you know which is right? Are you not just making God into an image of your own making? Is this not one of the 10 commandments?
Hey Steve-
I am not interested in arguing about these issues with you. I am all for dialogue but that is not what is occurring here!
With that said here are some thoughts on your most recent comments:
McLaren uses the word "absolute" in his discussion concerning Scripture and I am not sure what he means as he doesn't develop the idea in his book. Perhaps (and this is speculation) he means those parts of Scripture that are not absolute but are relative to culture (i.e. polygamy, eating meat sacrificed to idols, greeting one another with a holy kiss, etc). These cannot be seen as absolutes or at least very few Christians see them and practice them as absolutes.
On the issue of the usefulness of Scripture, this is the Bible's teaching concerning itself in 1 Timothy 3:16. And this is the practice of all who read Scripture. We read Scripture because it is useful and typically those parts of Scripture that are not deemed useful (i.e. people struggle with how to apply it to their daily lives) are neglected or ignored. Not that this is right but this is what is done by many.
On the "formative text" idea, I just mean that the Bible is the book that the Christian community (the Church) gathers around (studies, reads, preaches, teaches, etc.) and grows out of.
Sorry my words appear to be so cryptic to you. That is not my intention! Sadly, I feel that you are far more interested in ad hominem attacks and red herring arguments than really discussing the concepts. This becomes tedious and tiring and far from beneficial for us or any one else.
Ad hominem attacks? I have not attacked you personally, although your statement of being a pastor does concern me. This all seems like a dialogue to me...maybe not to you, as I am not affirming your position. But this is your blog, so you can do what you want.
I am curious as to what this "emerging church" stuff means in your opinion. I am very concerned especially in your situation as a teacher(you will be judged more stricly), as your position on salvation. According to an earlier post.... "Theologically, post-evangelicals are wrestling with the meaning of the atonement. Jesus and Scripture seem to have a lot more in mind than just personal salvation by substitutionary atonement (though the salvation of individuals by faith in Christ is definitely included and important!)."
Important? What could you possibly do to add to what Jesus did on the cross for salvation? If you are questioning salvation by faith alone, then your faith is not saving faith. Maybe because the "emerging church" has compromised scripture so much, they have thrown the absolutes out with the cultural stuff. Of course, once you start choosing what scripture to believe in, then you cannot really believe in any of it. You become your own God, making the rules. The sin of the Garden of Eden is still around today.
This rebellious spirit has been around for a long time...it makes those involved in this have "a form of spirituality, but deny it's power".
This "emerging church" seems a lot like the Lutheran church, which I attended for many years. They have generally compromised scripture and found so many "grey areas" that they have become irrelevant, and hardly no one goes any more(except all the grey hairs). Lives are not changed, but people temporarily "feel good" about themselves(and their sin). The pastors are masters of warm fuzzies and softballs....... Just heard today that they reinstated a Lutheran pastor in Demark who "does not believe there is a God". Not suprising. The slippery slope in action.
Still not sure what these "extra biblical words" are that justify the bible's authority.
I do not consider this a "red herring" discussion. You mentioned the "post evangelical" understanding on biblical issues, and I was curious as to what these really were, in your opinion. As you can see, I do have a few opinions of my own, and you are free to refute my observations....that is what dialogue is about.
Steve
Steve-
Sorry if I have been too easily offended.
Let me try to put you at ease, though I don't know if that is entirely possible. I believe in salvation by faith in Christ alone. What I and others mean is that perhaps Christ's death on the cross achieved a lot more than personal salvation. The early church understood Christ's death primarily as the defeat of Satan and evil with the result of paying the ransom to set captives free.
In saying this, the church fathers were not denying that personal salvation by faith in Christ did not happen, but the way in which that was achieved (i.e. the defeat of Satan) was different (as opposed to substitutionary atonement).
The "extra biblical words" are these: authority, inerrancy, infallibility, revelation, objective, absolute, and literal. Do any of these words appear in Scripture in relation to the Bible's teaching concerning itself? Does the Bible claim inerrancy or infallibility for itself? Does it teach these concepts? If not, these are extra biblical words (outside of the Bible) which are being used to help us understand how the Bible is authoritative. Yet the irony is that we have to appeal to concepts not taught in Scripture to argue for its ultimate authority.
I believe the Bible is the word of God. It is the inspired, God-breathed record of some (not all) of God's acts in history.
Grace and peace,
Steve
Great...we can have a chat about this stuff. For some reason, I have stumbled online to this stuff, and I am concerned/curious.
I am certainly not a scholar of the bible, but I can immediately come up with some verses claiming revelation from God on scripture. Gal 1:11-12 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
And what about John 14:24 He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.
And....1 Thes 4:2 For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus
Sounds like a lot of authority, and revelation to me. And these are a few of, plenty more where that came from.
So where does this comment...."Yet the irony is that we have to appeal to concepts not taught in Scripture to argue for its ultimate authority"......come from. Is this the book author's statement, or yours? It seems that authority of the bible is clearly stated, and this idea of other concepts to create some "authority" in the bible is not needed. Is Jesus telling those that His words(new testament Gospel), are His Fathers Words not enough? What other "concepts" could be better than God Himself?
Maybe I am missing something, but this seems very obvious. The author may be streching so much, that those without any bible knowledge may be led astray. Maybe he is trying to get a "dialogue" going, but in the mean time, some may be turned from the faith because of this nonsense. This is what REALLY concerns me about all of this. Jesus was very upset about those that could cause "little ones to stumble".
All of this brings me to...Romans 16 :17-18 I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of nai"ve people.
Romans 16 seems, to me, the answer to all this "emerging stuff". AS I said in an earlier post, the Lutheran church has been "emerging" for years, and look where it has gotten them.
It seems that this emerging church stuff is a way of wiggling out of the teaching of God, so we can live a life today with more "enlightenment". In other words, we can live how we think we should be able to. Proverbs 14:12 answers that...There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.
As I said earlier. Making scripture more palatable today may make us feel better for a while, but leaves it meaningless and worthy of rejection. We all have the Word of God written on our hearts, and our conscience testifies to that fact. We all know that we have earned a death penalty in hell for our sins. That only Jesus could and did pay for that penalty on the cross. Our hearts and scripture confirms it(Rom 6:23). Where are these "early church fathers" accounts of just a defeat of Satan?
In response to all of this "emerging church" stuff. I believe we should follow Paul's advice... watch out and stay away. Discussing something is one thing, but deliberately deceiving those who are not believers or young in the faith, is another. People are going to an eternity in hell as we sit around and muse about whether the bible is true or not. In our attempt to dialogue, people are perishing. Just what satan wants.
Steve-
Part of why I feel attack is how presumptive you are in your posts. You are constantly questioning the motives of those in the emerging church discussion. Yes, some are in dangerous water theologically. But many others are not.
I have never questioned the truth of the Bible as you implied in your post and it feels to me your are missing the point entirely.
The passages of Scripture you cited: Do they apply to all of Scripture or to contexts within which they occur? I would argue they apply to those contexts.
Galatians 1:11-12 doesn't even refer to what Paul is currently writing. He is referring to the gospel that he preached to them at an earlier time! Hence he is not referring to the letter he is writing to them at that point and time.
Jesus statement in John 14:24 Jesus says these words you HEAR. He is referring to what he has spoken. Yes these words were later written down for us. But did Jesus have the Bible in mind as opposed to the actual words he spoke at that time?
1 Thes 4:2 Paul is either appealing to instructions he gave to them while with them or he is appealing to the instructions that immediately follow. But he does not have the authority of the Bible in mind as the Bible was not assembled at the time of his writing this letter.
Yes, the Bible does speak of authority in many of its teachings. But does it argue for authority of the entire canon, Genesis through Revelation within it's pages? The best verse arguing for this is 2 Timothy 3:16 where we learn all Scripture is God-breathed. Yet questions remain: what Scriptures? Did Paul have in mind what he was writing at the time? Did he understand this to apply to the OT? God-breathed would point to authority. Since the Scriptures find their origin in God then they would be authoritative. But interestingly the word authority is not used to describe the Scriptures.
The statement you quoted "the irony is that we have to appeal to concepts not taught in Scripture to argue for its ultimate authority..." is a quote from McLaren's book.
Perhaps you have given an adequate defense for the Bible arguing for its authority and revelation but you have not dealt at all with the other concepts from that statement: inerrancy, infallibility, objective, absolute, and literal.
As to the early church fathers accounts of a defeat of Satan I believe you have misunderstood me. I never said the early church believed that the cross brought about just the defeat of Satan. They argued that it brought about the defeat of Satan and because of this defeat brought redemption, atonement, salvation to believers.
Jesus alludes to this understanding in John 12:31-33 "31Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. 32But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." 33He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die."
1 John 3:8 says "The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work."
Col 2:14-15 "He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross."
Hebrews 2:14 "Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil—"
I don't desire to get into a Scripture quoting proof text contest with you. Let me quote from Greg Boyd's book God at War to conclude my comments on this.
Since at least the time of Anselm in the eleventh century A.D., and especially since the Reformation in the sixteenth century, the tendency of the Western church has been to focus almost all its attention on the anthropological dimension of the atonement, usually to the neglect of the cosmic dimension that is central to the New Testament. In the standard Protestant view, the chief thing God was accomplishing when he had Jesus die on the cross was satisfying his perfect justcie and thereby atoning for our sins. The work of the cross is centered on us. Other aspects of the cross, to the extent that they are acknowledged, are seen as subsidiary to this anthropocentric dimensino of Christ's work.
I [Boyd] by no means want to minimize this aspect of Christ's work, for it is a profound source of freedom and joy for the believer, and is certainly deeply rooted in Scripture. At the same time, however, I cannot agree that the primary significance of the cross is found here. From the perspective of the New Testament, I maintain, the anthropological significance of Christ's deat and resurrection is rooted in something more fundamental and broad that God was aiming at: to defeat once and for all his cosmic archenemy, Satan, along with the other evil powers under his dominion, and thereby to establish Christ as the legitimate ruler of the cosmos, and human beings as his legitimate viceroys upon the earth. (p. 240)
And again from Boyd:
While Christ's substitutionary death for sinful humans is central for understanding what Christ did for us, therefore, this dimension of Christ's work is possible only because of the broader cosmic victory Christ won on the cross. (p. 241)
Finally are you sure this is not an ad hominem argument when you say "Discussing something is one thing, but deliberately deceiving those who are not believers or young in the faith, is another." You are accussing those in the emerging church discussion as deliberately deceiving. This is clearly your opinion but it is also an attack. You are questioning motives rather than the arguments being made by the emerging church. This is also done when you claim that the desire of the emerging church is to "make the Scripture more palatable today". Are you not questioning the motives of the emerging church rather than arguing the logical merits of the discussion at hand? Doesn't this fit the definition of ad hominem: "Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives."
Grace and peace,
Steve
Hey Steve...good discussion.
Maybe some of the "emerging church" people are not in hot water theologically, but it sure seems like they all are. For a seeker looking for the truth, let them look around for it. But those that teach, they should be judged more strictly, so what is wrong with a probing investigation of motives/reasoning?
Your comment... "I don't desire to get into a Scripture quoting proof text contest with you. Let me quote from Greg Boyd's book God at War to conclude my comments on this"......... Maybe this is where we stand in our differences. I trust in God and His revealed Word to us. I believe that He has allowed His Word to be revealed truthfully and completely. You would rather quote some guy. I agree with God that the wisdom of the world is foolishness in God's eyes. That there is a way that seem good to a man, but it leads to death.
Paul was clear in Galatians that the gospel he taught was a direct REVELATION from God. All of Paul's gospel presentations were the same. Trying to compromise this truth, in my opinion, is absurd. This happened in Paul's day too... 1Gal6-8
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!
Wow...sounds pretty bad to me...of course if you don't beleive in the "writings" of Paul, maybe this is no big deal.
And if you really beleive that ALL scripture is "God breathed", how could you possibly say that it is not the absolute truth of God? How could it not possibly be infallible? Just because you cannot find that particular word, it still means the same thing. Doesn't it? Does God not know what He is talking about? Can't He be trusted? If God "breathed" it, then if God is perfect, why would His Word not be the same? Are you not "throwing people into confusion and perverting" the gospel?
And if scripture is not absolute truth, how can you believe in anything in it? How do you know that your faith is real saving faith? What difference does it make that I "feel" good about something that may not be true? I would rather feel bad about something I know is true. This sadly, is where the culture is today. Let's compromise and twist everything to make into something that make us "feel good". We can be a God unto ourselves....and we can make God into an image of your own making. Sounds pretty good to the relative truth culture of our time. Unfortunately, this is violating the 2nd commandment....that is, if you "choose" to believe in the 10 commandments. Maybe those are not your motives, but it certainly gives the people today, what their "itchy ears" want to hear.
Yes, we have been delivered from the slavery of sin to be a slave to God and His righteousness. Great. But we have a death penalty in hell that we have earned by our sin. That is the truth of the gospel. Whether Jesus said or Paul. The penalty for our sin was paid for by Jesus. This is the message of the cross. I know this is "foolishness to those that are perishing", but it is the truth of God. I am not sure what the big deal about the importance of victory over satan is, instead of the atonement for our sins.
Maybe my personal attacks are not directed to you personally. You are a teacher, and the Word(if you believe it) says that you will be judged more strictly. I guess I don't begrudge someone writing a book to generate discussion and to make a few bucks. But a pastor teaching this stuff needs to be held accountable. I don't know you personally, but yes, I am challenging your position as a teacher, if you are teaching this stuff.
Peter also had something to say about those that pervert the truth... 2 Peter 2 1-3
But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the WAY OF TRUTH INTO DISREPUTE. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
Sorry about all the scripture, but it MEANS something to me. Not just nice stories, but the absolute revealed Word to me and you. I can trust God and His Word. May God bless you and give you His wisdom on this matter. Thanks for letting me vent a little and find out about this "movement".
BTW. I am from Colorado too....the Springs. Let me know when you are in town sometime, and perhaps we could meet for coffee.
Steve
Post a Comment