Introduction to Emergent Thinking
Brian McLaren has crafted an apologetic of sorts for the emergent church, although, he would probably prefer I not say so. More thorough reviews of McLaren’s A Generous Orthodoxy are undoubtedly available elsewhere so I will limit myself to some more general observations regarding the book.
First, McLaren’s writing is a good example of what I call emergent theological writing. Books such as Blue Like Jazz and Velvet Elvis are other well known examples of this style of writing. This is writing which is reflective and theological in subject matter but is conversational in tone. This conversation tone in writing has the effect of simultaneously making the arguments presented accessible to a greater number of readers and also more palatable to readers. McLaren’s writing is not as engaging as Mr. Miller’s in Blue Like Jazz but it is more informed and precise than Mr. Bell’s in Velvet Elvis. However, what is frustrating, at least to this reader, is the sometimes self-deprecating tone that Mr. McLaren takes in passages. Mr. McLaren in places comes across as a genuinely humble, sincere and well intentioned man (which I am sure he is). However, in places I could do without such remarks as this one, “I’m sure I’m wrong about many things, although I’m not sure exactly which things I’m wrong about. I’m even sure I’m wrong about what I think I’m right about in at least some cases.” In short I find such statements to be a frustrating example of what post-modern thinking has done to writing and thinking; giving us a waffling sort of argument that is perhaps too apologetic and unsure.
One other note on this subject of emergent theological writing that deserves to be mentioned. Emergent theological writings are too self-aware. Post-modernity, for all the emphasis on community, is dangerously self-aware, to the point of being either narcissistic or self-deprecating.
Second, A Generous Orthodoxy relies heavily on experience, practical theology and some philosophy to advance its arguments. As a student entering a Master’s program in biblical exegesis I find this incredibly frustrating. Please understand, I wholeheartedly support the experiential disciplines of the Christian life and in no way would want to discredit them. However, experiences are not in my mind the most certain way of understanding who God is. There are a number of powers and forces that shape my experiences in life and I would hesitate to extrapolate too much about the character of God from them. This is primarily a result of my still finding Scripture to be the most sure way of understanding who God is.
The other reason I find some of McLaren’s arguments frustrating is that his use of Scripture is sometimes inconsistent. McLaren (and other emergent writers in my experience) have a difficult time dealing with much of the Old Testament and are even selective about their portrayal of Jesus. Emergent writers are quick to point to a kind, loving, accepting Jesus, but slow to really embrace a Jesus who damns entire villages for rejecting the teaching of His disciples, or a Jesus who intentionally teaches to blind and confuse certain people. This is hardly a Jesus which most emergent people would promote, since they are probably too busy trying to find some good and and learn from Zen Buddhists.
To his credit McLaren deals with the struggle of the Old Testament much better than most emergent authors in chapter 10. However, in this chapter what he promotes is a form of trajectory hermeneutics. Trajectory hermeneutics may have some merit, but I would be cautious to embrace it wholeheartedly. Regardless it is the topic of another post and I really must read Slaves, Women & Homosexuals before I remark on it.
Finally, I will close by remarking that A Generous Orthodoxy is a must read if you desire to understand the emergent church movement. If a movement that refuses to be too clearly defined would elect a pope, McLaren would be a good choice. His knowledge of history and his ability to write in an intentionally obscure and provoking manner, well suits a movement that thrives on obscurity, controversy, and dialog. However, I cannot help but wonder how far the gospel would have gone if Paul had shown the same apologetic, unsure and unclear definition for the message of the gospel and the mission of the church.
