Gospel at the Center

Doug Baker has written a new article in Baptist Press, "The Gospel at the Center."  In it he works through emerging church issues and theology, Rob Bell and Brian McLaren, and finds it all pretty dangerous.  Do you agree?

While no human being will ever be able adequately to explain the mystery of the incarnation, the resurrection, or the Trinity, a “generous orthodoxy” (an idea taken from McLaren’s book by the same title) would never reframe these doctrines or others like them in such fluid terms so as to confuse others of their true meaning. In the end, this orthodoxy is not generous, but dangerous.

Comments

[Tim]

McLaren could be dangerous, but not really dangerous. His problem is not what he said as much as what he does not say. In his writing he says a lot and hints at things but he strategically leaves other things out. He doesn't deny them but he doesn't affirm them or even acknowledge them. The act of not teaching the full council of God is bad, but not as dangerous as teaching flat out error.

[Steve McCoy]

Very interesting observation Tim. I said on my other site that where McLaren needs to say more, people like Baker, Christian critics and the like are often saying too much.

[Bob Robinson]

Baker’s article seems to have a huge contradiction. At one point, he says, “Discussions (or conversations) are always welcome among Christians as a safeguard, because the best of men are men at best. Humans are prone to error, and no one can honestly claim to understand everything revealed in Holy Scripture.” Then he moves to say that he and the Southern Baptists have figured out some things in their humanness—like the doctrine of the veracity and authority of Scripture and the doctrine of Justification.

Which is it? Are prone to error and therefore should be humble when we come to Scripture, like Bell when he says, “I grew up thinking that we figured out the Bible –- that we knew what it means. Now I have no idea what most of it means.” Or should we say we believe that humans are prone to error, except of course when it comes to the Reformation’s articulations of the doctrine of Scripture and Justification and Hell?

[Mark]

Steve,

Would you say Brian McLaren is any more or less dangerous than someone like Joel Osteen? I sometimes wonder about Osteen's teaching of Scripture...
Take care.

[Steve McCoy]

I think they are both dangerous for different reasons. The difference for me is that McLaren has much to add and provokes some good things while Osteen only makes me want to visit Osteen Buick Pontiac Oldsmobile on 'Sunday, SUNDAY, Sunday!'

[Mark]

Hilarious!

Regarding McLaren, he has been criticized many times, by Emergent followers, for taking a stand on biblical issues. In response, he crumbles and pleads for forgiveness. Interesting.

[Keith]

Baker: ...a “generous orthodoxy” (an idea taken from McLaren’s book by the same title)...

The phrase "generous orthodoxy" actually came from Yale theologian Hans Frei in a debate with Carl Henry:

"My own vision of what might be propitious for our day, split as we are, not so much into denominations as into schools of thought, is that we need a kind of generous orthodoxy which would have in it an element of liberalism—a voice like the Christian Century—and an element of evangelicalism—the voice of Christianity Today. I don't know if there is a voice between those two, as a matter of fact. If there is, I would like to pursue it."

Baker's description of a "generous orthodoxy" as a willy-nilly theology where anything goes doesn't fit the self-description of the people who are pursuing that kind of view. It doesn't even fit McLaren's own description of the term.

************
"Regarding McLaren, he has been criticized many times, by Emergent followers, for taking a stand on biblical issues. In response, he crumbles and pleads for forgiveness."

I have a feeling he would describe these interactions differently.

[iMonk]

I am getting a list of questions that I want to start mass mailing to these critics. (Who, btw, have every right to criticize whatever they wish.)

Question 1: Have you been to more than 3 Emergent churches? How many services, sermons, worship times have you visited?

Question 2: Other than Brian Mclaren, who else is really dangerous in the Emergent church?

Question 3: Have you read Mclaren's major books?

Question 4: Do you think Mclaren has an issue with ________________ Christianity? (Fill in your brand.)

Question 5: At what level does the conversation get "dangerous?" Questions? Observations? Changes at the church on the corner?

Since most Southern Baptist Churches couldn't find any confession of faith endorsed and used by their own members/leaders if a $50k reward was offered, I'm not convinced Mclaren is much of a threat. What cardinal doctrines has he DENIED? If we are talking about being obscure or less than totally on target, I I have to wonder what members of thousands of typical SBC churches are getting from the kind of preachers I've heard in the SBC for almost 50 years?

What would we do without Mclaren to be the poster child for the emergent church?

[Steve McCoy]

iMonk, this is where I go when I talk to critics as well. Thanks for expressing these questions.

[Account Deleted]

imonk, excellent post. i could not agree more.

[Steve McCoy]

Thanks to Joe Thorn for this catch, a discussion at Zondervan with Bell and McLaren posted here.