A Conversation about Brian McLaren’s A New Kind of Christianity
Brian McLaren, I Accept Your Invitation
Welcome: You’re reading “Part 1” of my blog series responding to Brian McLaren’s book A New Kind of Christianity. Many people have engaged Brian’s thinking—most focusing on a systematic theology response (you can visit here to see a boatload of links). I’m thankful for their foundational responses. My focus is on “pastoral theology” or “practical theology.” As a pastor, counselor, and professor who equips the church for biblical counseling and spiritual formation, I’m accepting Brian’s invitation to interact about the implications of his views for the everyday life of one-another Christianity—the “personal ministry of the Word.” My posts will be periodic so I can intelligently, carefully, fairly, and thoroughly engage Brian’s thinking.
Brian’s Invitation
Throughout A New Kind of Christianity Brian invites conversation. He calls it an invitation for discussion not a “debate that creates hate” (p. 17). Using a sports’ analogy, Brian writes about his views, “They are offered as a gentle serve or lob; their primary goal is to start the interplay, to get things rolling, to invite reply” (p. 23). Brian also notes concerning those who may disagree with him that, “We welcome their charitable critique” (p. 25). In summary he says, “This quest must instead work more like a wedding proposal, an invitation. It must be about free conversation, not forced conversion” (p. 27).
To this generic invite, Brian adds a very specific invitation to pastors and counselors. When I read the following words, my ears perked up higher than Mr. Spock from Star Trek.
“This Greco-Roman framing may help explain why Christian pastors and counselors have such a hard time convincing Christians that God actually loves them” (p. 266).
Game On
Until reading that quote, my plan was to let the “theologians” converse with Brian. Of course, theology intimately relates to everyday life, so I should have been willing to join the conversation from the get-go. But when I read that quote, it was “Game on.” Brian had served up his “gentle lob” and I would volley back.
This is why the specific emphasis of my tennis match, er, conversation, with Brian focuses on:
What are the implications of A New Kind of Christianity for “the personal ministry of the Word”—biblical counseling, spiritual formation, pastoral counseling, pastoral care, Christian counseling, one another ministry, soul care, spiritual direction, spiritual friendship, and personal discipleship?
Call it whatever you want. I’ve spent the past quarter-century in the trenches of pastoral ministry comforting grieving parishioners, counseling struggling Christians, equipping lay people, pastors, and professional Christian counselors for “the personal ministry of the Word.”
Brian’s “ten questions” deserve a “pastoral ministry response.” Game on.
A Few Ground Rules
Any good tennis match must have a few ground rules (even in post-modern tennis—sorry, I couldn’t resist!). Any healthy conversation ought to include some communication skills and relational competencies. I’ll “basically” let Brian set those ground rules.
Ground Rule # 1: Q and R (Sorta’)
Brian asks not for Q/A, but for Q/R. Q/A, of course, equals Question and Answer. Brian says he thinks most questions aren’t suited for a simple answer (I’m not sure any questions are suited for a simple answer…). So he prefers Q/R: Question and Response—stimulating, open-ended, conversations starters.
So here’s my intention:
To engage Brian in stimulating Q/R about how his ten questions relate to the personal ministry of the Word (biblical counseling, spiritual formation, pastoral care, small groups, personal discipleship, soul care, spiritual direction, spiritual friendship, one another ministry, etc.).
Now, that said, I will try to do not just what Brian said, but what Brian did. As much as Brian likes to focus on “responses,” his book is filled with his answers to his ten questions. That’s not a critique. It’s an observation. And…it set’s the ground rules fairly so that we’re both playing by the same norms. Yes, I will give my answers. And I’ll give them in the form I often tell my students, “This is my current best attempt to respond to this question.” So…please be charitable when you read not only “responses” from me, but also “answers.” I want to be like Brian.
Ground Rule # 2: “Charitable” (Faithful Are the Wounds of a Friend)
Brian repeatedly asks that people who respond to him do so charitably. I want to do that. In fact, I hope I do it more consistently than it felt like, to me, Brian did it.
I don’t have the time or space in this first post to share the many examples of Brian’s less-than-charitable interactions throughout the book, but I will share a few samplers…to set the ground rules. Brian starts the book by illustrating his innocent speaking engagement being bothered by four people placing leaflets on car windshields talking about Brian as a “known heretic” (p. 1). He responds by asking the rhetorical question, “How did a mild-manner guy like me get into so much trouble” (p. 2)?
Now, now. Is that any way to start a friendly conversation? So…those who disagree or have different responses from Brian are illustrative of heresy hunters. Brian and those with views like him are innocent mild-manner guys. I know, it’s subtle (well, kind of). I know, Brian didn’t say everyone who disagrees is a “heresy hunter.” He didn’t say everyone who agrees with him is a good guy. But… come on… is that really an open-ended invitation to a charitable conversation?
But that’s topped by the page where Brian introduces the first five questions. The illustration now changes from parking lot heresy hunters to evil guards at a concentration camp (p. 31).
And who are these concentration camp guards? They are pastors (who disagree with Brian).
For Brian, the reason others are not on his quest is because they’ve been locked in a closet, cell, or concentration camp by guards (pastors) motivated by a desire to keep people under their control by making them fearful of the real world. These guards (pastors) are like Satan masquerading as an angel of light. “We see our guards not as guards at all, but as pleasant custodians in clerical robes or casual suits. They’ve been to graduate school (seminary) where many of them mastered the techniques of friendly manipulation…” (p. 31, parenthesis added).
Brian, come clean. That’s not a shout out, is it? That’s a bit of an introductory dig. We’ve been dissed, right? Is this really how we want to invite charitable conversation?
So…now…if I “respond” to Brian with any difference of opinion, that puts me in the camp (remember, he said “many of them” not a few) of those manipulative pastors who seek to control their congregations through fear (techniques learned in “graduate school”—where do pastors go for graduate school?—seminary). So I’m in a double-bind because I’ve pastored three churches and I now equip pastors at a seminary.
The examples could go on and on. These are simply two of Brian’s somewhat subtle illustrative introductions. Read the book and you’ll stumble upon a batch of specific less-than-charitable statements about those who disagree with Brian.
They don’t feel like a “gentle lob” in tennis. They come across like the gauntlet being laid down in a jousting match, like an En Garde” in fencing, like a “glove slap” in a duel, or like a Klingon Bat’leth line-up (you have to be a Star Trek fan).
I’m going to try to follow Brian’s ground rules of charitable conversation, but hopefully more as a friendly tennis match than as, “I challenge you to a duel!” Perhaps the imagery from Proverbs fits best, “Faithful are the wounds of a friend” (Proverbs 27:6). Some of Brian’s words are biting, wounding, sarcastic, in-your-face (yep, mild-mannered Brian). I’ll try to take them as faithful wounds from a friend (believing the best about Brian’s intentions). So…when I’m a tad playful, or sarcastic, or telling-it-like-it-is, please allow me the benefit of the doubt, also.
The Rest of the Story
In “Part 2,” I’ll further explain my focus—what I’m calling “the personal ministry of the Word.” In relationship to Brian’s ten questions, I’ll introduce two themes—the sufficiency of Scripture and progressive sanctification—as they relate to “biblical counseling” and “spiritual formation.”
Join the Conversation
What implications do you see for “the personal ministry of the Word” from Brian’s ten questions in A New Kind of Christianity?
Bob,
Thanks for aiming at “correcting (your) opponents with gentleness” (2 Tim 2:25). In response to your question about “the personal ministry of the Word”, I read a really great article from Stanley Hauewas on preaching that nailed it for me (its far too long to post here in it’s entirety but well worth a good read when you get a chance)-Here’s a snippet from the article (I will post a link to the full article at the end of this comment):
“If postmodernism means anything, it means that the comforting illusion of modernity that conflict is, can be, and should be avoided is over. No unbiased viewpoint exists that can in principle insure agreements. Our difficulty is not that we have conflicts, but that as modern people we have not had the courage to force the conflicts we ought to have had. Instead, we have comforted ourselves with the ideology of pluralism, forgetting that pluralism is the peace treaty left over from past wars that now benefits the victors of those wars. One hopes that God is using this time to remind the Church that Christianity is unintelligible without enemies. Indeed, the whole point of Christianity is to produce the right kind of enemies. We have been beguiled by our established status to forget that to be a Christian is to be made part of an army against armies. It has been suggested that satisfaction theories of the Atonement and the correlative understanding of the Christian life as a life of interiority became the rule during the long process we call the Constantinian settlement. When Caesar becomes a member of the Church the enemy becomes internalized. The problem is no longer that the Church is seen as a threat to the political order, but that now my desires are disordered. The name for such an internalization in modernity is pietism and the theological expression of that practice is called Protestant liberalism.”
In an attempt to re-personalize the Word of God I believe that McLaren has actually depersonalized scripture into obtuse commentary on his evangelical enemies….which is strange. McLaren is a guy who wants Christianity to be non-offensive and has tried to rid the church of enemies at every turn. As Hauerwas writes, “Most of us do not go to church because we are seeking a safe haven from our enemies; we go to church to be assured we have no enemies.” However, in every age their are men and women who desert and distort the personal ministry of the Word in the name of making peace with culture. The greatest enemies of the gospel in our postmodern are always saying things like, “Let’s have a dialog” when in truth what they really want is a doctrinal standoff. In so doing, McLaren often makes war with faithful followers of Christ and rants when God’s people defend the gospel with passion and conviction.
[Here’s a link to the full article by Stanley Hauerwas cited in this reponse: http://cruciality.wordpress.com/2009/04/18/stanley-hauerwas-on-preaching-as-though-we-had-enemies%5D
Bob:
This is an auspicious beginning, and I admire your self-control. It takes a special work of the Spirit to be as gracious as you are in light of the barbs that Brian has tossed your way. I’m looking forward to hearing more from your pastoral perspective.
I found this post while searching google. Pretty impressive too, since google usually shows relatively old results but this one is very recent! Anyway, pretty informative, especially since this is not a subject many people can write something decent about. Take care…
Hello,I love reading through your blog, I wanted to leave a little comment to support you and wish you a good continuation. Wishing you the best of luck for all your blogging efforts.
I just wonder, what was wrong with the old kind of Christianity? You know, the one that reminds us that we are but dust, undeserving sinners graciously saved by a loving and merciful God…
I also admire your self-control Bob. I have little patience for this post-modern “stuff” as I watch its teachings delude many people. I will continue to read as you post on this topic and I will certainly pray for you as you wade into this.
Bob, thanks for taking on this ambitious, and what I’m sure will be, informative, project. This should be an interesting “conversation.” I look forward to listening in.
Blessings
Bill H.
All, Thanks for your interactions. Obviously, this is a conversation that many want to listen to. Hits on this post are up considerably. I’d appreciate your prayers for focus and fairness. Focus–to be able to post regularly on this (I do have a day job…in fact, about five of them!). And fairness: in tone, factuality, Christian love. Bob
By the way, a number of people have asked me, “Bob, do you know Brian, and does Brian know you’re posting?
Yes and Yes.
I met Brian back in 1995 (how time flies). Myself, Brian, and a couple of other pastors gathered periodically on the picnic table on the property in the field where they eventually built the church building where Brian pastored for a number of years. We’d talk, share, converse about pastoral ministry, and pray. Those meetings lasted less than a year. We’ve not re-connected since those early days. Needless to say, our journeys have taken some different paths since then.
When I launched this series, I emailed Brian to let him know about it. I think that’s only fair and right and ethical–it’s the Christlike way. I invited him to feel free to engage with my posts via comments on my blog, through his blog, or through emails. I’ve not heard from him yet, but it is just the first day, and he is very busy.
Dr. Kelleman:
I read your post; found it informative… I have received some of the best seminary training at CBS…however, I often wonder why man feels the ‘need’ to complicate the gospel which is a simple message of God’s love and our need for redemption. Because of God’s undying love He has provided a way for redemption through His Son Christ Jesus. As for me, I like Paul (a great theologian) believe that we should preach Christ….”For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake” (2Cor 4:5) PERIOD!
So…when I’m a tad playful, or sarcastic, or telling-it-like-it-is, please allow me the benefit of the doubt, also.
Go for the win, I like you work with those who are in need of a loving GOD that can only be found through the Bible and an intimate relationship with GOD.
I will be following your blog don’t know yet if I want to waste my money on Maclarens book
Blessings
Buff
Thanks for the very useful blog and I appreciate you keep us inform of the current wave of Christian movement. There are so many so called
new wave and diverting us into adopting the secular worldview. Keep up the good work..
Perhaps Brian’s introduction in his book was not so inviting; he has been called worse than a heretic by those who disagree. He’s had death threats, he’s been called Satan, he’s been labeled a communist, etc. He probably also does not expect the bulk of his readers to be those with whom there will likely be little to no theological agreement, even after reading his books. In other words, you’re not the target audience! Still, I enjoyed reading this and look forward to continuing the series with you.
Doreen, Thanks for sharing your perspective. Whether I’m his target audience or not, I still stand by my summary. If Brian truly wants to invite conversation with those who may not agree with him, then it sees uninviting to paint himself as innocent and to paint others who may disagree as heresy-hunters. I happen to disagree with much of what Brian has written. Yet, anyone who has read my 750 blog posts or 400 book reviews, knows I’m not heresy hunter. 98% of all my reviews are favorable. And, even if I’m not his audience, all the more reason for Brian to be fair in his opening remarks. If his audience, as you surmise, are those who agree with him, then they deserve an accurate assessment of those who disagree–rather than a biased assessment that paints all who disagree as heresy hunters. I detect a consistent thread in Brian’s writings of playing the “I’m an innocent nice guy” card, while using against others the “you’re a judgmental Pharisee” card. It’s not true. Bob