The Rest of The Story We Find Ourselves In
**Disclaimer: I am doing an admittedly dangerous and possibly frustrating thing here. I am defending Brian McLaren. This should not be taken as blanket endorsement of McLaren’s thoughts. I will admit, I like a lot of what he says, but there is some that I disagree with.
Well, it seems that Mr. Silva has gotten tired of talking about Rob Bell for a while, and has now set his sights on Brian McLaren. This is not surprising since McLaren has become a de facto spokesman of sorts for the Emergent movement, but what it surprising, is how so easily facts get twisted in these attacks.
In this piece, we are told that Brian McLaren is “Speaking for Satan” - a pretty serious charge. Ken gives this quote from D.A. Carson’s book, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, which says:
substitutionary atonement doesn’t address the question of why, if God wants to forgive us, he doesn’t just do it. How can punishing an innocent person make things better? “That just sounds like one more injustice in the cosmic equation. It sounds like divine child abuse. You know?”
Now it would be one thing if this quote were an accurate representation of McLaren’s work. What Silva is doing is actually quoting someone who is pulling one line from McLaren’s book, The Story We Find Ourselves In. For those that aren’t familiar with this book, it is the second in his New Kind of Christian trilogy.
These books are essentially semi-autobiographical novels. They tell the story of middle-aged pastor, named Dan Poole, who has a crisis of faith, and ends up having a bunch of conversations about faith with Neo, a biology teacher who turns out to be somewhat of a mentor to Dan. The passage that this quote is ripped out of is from the chapter entitled “More Than Even All the Windows Can Show”. In this chapter Dan, Neo, Carol (Dan’s wife), and Kerry (Neo’s friend) are having a convseration about why Jesus had to die. Below is an excerpt:
Carol was quiet for a minute, very thoughtful, first looking down at her feet, then over at the mountains that surrounded us, and then back to Kerry in front of her. “Well, I believe that God sent Jesus into the world to absorb all the punishment for our sins. That’s what the cross was all about. It was Jesus absorbing the punishment that all of us deserve. He became the substitute for all of us. As he suffered and died, all our wrongs were paid for, so all of us can be forgiven. OK?”
Kerry smiled. “I know that is supposed to mean something to me, and I suppose I can see it, but it raises so many questions.”
“Go ahead,” Carol said. “What questions?”
“For starters, if God wants to forgive us, why doesn’t he just do it? How does punishing an innocent person make things better? That just sounds like one more injustice in the cosmic equation. It sounds like divine child abuse. You know?”
Carol looked for help. ”I don’t think I’m doing very well. Dan? Neo?”
I spoke up. “Kerry, what Carol just tried to explain is what theologians call a theory of atonement. It’s a possible explanation for how Jesus’ life and death play a role in the salvation of the human race.”
Kerry responded, “Yes. I can see that you would need such a theory. It’s just that it…well, Christian dogma and doctrine don’t make complete sense to me. No offense, but I grew up with this stuff, and it just stopped working for me as I grew older.”
“I understand,” I said. “Really, what Carol explained is just one of six theories. It’s called the ’substitutionary atonement’ theory. To me, it’s like…” - I gestured up toward the sky - it’s like trying to see the whole beautiful, majestic sky from one of your hospital windows.”
The chapter goes on to talk about the different theories of atonement, and it doesn’t deny any of them. It just says that none of them capture the full meaning of the cross. There will always be part of the beauty that is mysterious. Brian McLaren never denies substitutionary atonement as a valid explanation in this book or in any of his other books. If anything, he like other theologians, realize that it has the potential to be misunderstood. This is a far cry from a denial.
So once again, it goes to show that if you do a little research, like actually reading the book for yourself, you can avoid making a fool out of yourself.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
MacLaren is indefensible. And the teachings of Paul, the proclamation of John the Baptist, and the Passover feast upon which Christ died should make any “discussion” of the theology of the cross clearly without controversy.
God did punish His Son in our place. That is the foundation of Christianity. The back and forth narratives in books sometimes reflect the conversations of others, but they surely are not the basis for Biblical theology. New “views” of the atonement are only “new”, and have not been a substantial part of evangelical church history.
MacLaren’s writings are thoughts, not exegetical presentations of Biblical interpretations.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Iranaeus, Gregory of Nyssa, Origen, Anselm, Abelard and others all spent considerable time trying to answer the question, Cur Deus Homo (Why Did God Become Human?).
The fact of the matter is that it wasn’t until Charles Hodge, a leading American theologian from Princeton, published his systematic theology in 1872-1873 that the penal substitution model as we know it today really took shape. Previously, ransom theory or variants of the Christus Victor model were more the prevailing view.
May 13th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
I do not subscribe to any of those labels, Jesus was the Passover Lamb, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. And it pleased the Father to bruise Him for us. Call it what you will, but in the end it was God, on the day of Passover, following through in what he forbid Abraham to finish.
Ransom and substitution and atonement and other descriptions are all within that Passover sacrifice. But to suggest God was a child abuser is blasphemy and does despite to the Spirit. Do people deny that God ordered Abrahm to sacrifice Isaac before forbidding him to complete it? Was God just kidding or playing a child abusing game? Or was God giving us a glorious and mysterious glimpse into the coming atonement?
He could not have made it any clearer.
May 13th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Rick…what Phil said is just simply undeniable historical fact.
Certainly Subs. Atonement makes much sense and is Biblical, but we can’t deny the other valid and might I add inclusive ways of coming at the ‘question’. None of them exclude or deny the others.
Just sayn’ =)
Joe
May 13th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
And to Phil’s point, McL doesn’t put forth SPA as ‘divine child abuse’ - one of the characters in the novelization who is struggling to understand why Jesus went to the cross and makes the statement. This statement prompts further discussion to make Jesus’ atonement clearer… It is disingenuous to suggest that McL is making this comparison as being his belief about atonement.
May 13th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
What?!? You’re telling me that ODMs lied about someone they hate? I’m shocked. Shocked.
May 13th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Even Michael Spencer refuses to entertain any defense of MacLaren because his views are so unbiblical. If you are set to defend then anything can be defended. I believe I have seen the child abuse analogy in an interview as well.
I guess MacLaren meant something else when he said the atonment view of the cross makes it false advertising. Again, blasphemy.
May 13th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Rick,
If you’re determined to condemn then anything can be condemned. All condemning this particular statement within this context does is make you less credible when there’s something that actually should be condemned.
May 13th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
The credibility police are theologically subjective. My horizontal credibility means nothing to me, and please provide us with a list of your “things that should be condemened”.
As with everyone else, I subjectivly retain the right to disagree with and sometimes condemn what I honestly see as worthy of it. That is what everyone does, everyone Tim.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Rick,
I’ve seen this particular item quoted in pieces on McL, but a google-search (not an exhaustive one) doesn’t seem to turn up him saying it directly.
I’m consistent in saying that McL says a whole lot of things I disagree with, but that doesn’t mean that everything he says is heretical (any more than Johnnie Mac, who’s wrong about a lot, is always incorrect).
If you must deal with people as either always wearing a black hat or a white hat, and judge everything they say accordingly, that says more about your own discernment than anything else…
May 13th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
No one’s disagreeing with that statement. But to pretend that the statement about child abuse was a straight position taken by McLaren when it was part of a conversation that functioned to move the conversation along in order to elaborate further on the cross is at the least irresponsible, and likely dishonest.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Somehow, I suspect that iMonk has defended a concept believed and taught by McLaren without giving carte blanche approval to him. If you read the VERY FIRST sentence of Phil’s, you will see that he has made the same allowance: McLaren is wrong about a lot of things, but in this particular instance, he is being lied about and castigated for something unsaid.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
And, as an example of something I disagree with - his comments last month at Willow Creek (about emphasizing the temporal over the eternal aspects of salvation) went too far, basically committing the same wrong as those who focus only on the eternal while paying lip service to the temporal. The solution to righting a wrong isn’t to swing the pendulum so far in the opposite direction so as to create an equal and opposite wrong.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
I am very often on different sides of issues while the majority here and the ODMs are many times applying the black and white hat on predictably different ends. What type of discernment does that reflect? Who is nuanced and who is entrenched?
MacLaren is viewed as unbiblical by many people, even some who disagree with the ODMs in most things. So your representation of my disagreement with him as unreasonable is not reasonable when viewed in the overall landscape of theological thought.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Sorry, but your very first statement in this thread
Shows who is nuanced and who is entrenched.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Rick,
The argument you’re making is that McL should never be defended no matter what, not even when the “Reverend” Ken Silva explicitly lies about him. That is at least unreasonable, and perhaps immoral.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Now I am immoral. Michael Spencer lies about MacLaren as well.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Even if true, that’s hardly material to the hardline position you’ve taken that even when McL is being lied about he shouldn’t be defended.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
I believe the context of my indispensible adjective was in the theology of the atonement, not about any perceived lies. I addressed the entire issue in Biblical terms, not refuting defending MacLaren against lies. Read the comment as notice the context.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Rick,
This particular statement about the atonement is defensible if Phil has accurately presented the facts. You seem to be simply stating over and over again “McLaren is indefensible” in lieu of grappling with the particular facts.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Facts = what I present.
I have presented:
*The Passover in Exodus
*The Passover of the cross
*John the Baptist proclamation
*Isaiah 53
*Abraham and Isaac
So i am not sure which thread you are reading when you say I am not grappling with facts. Show me where I have lied about MacLaren’s views.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Who are these characters? I am unfamiliar with the book. If the heretical stand was voiced by a non-Christian who is voicing doubt, confusion, and uncertainty about the atonement - then that is a character McLaren is using to say what many unbelievers say. I mean, that much is painfully obvious.
It sounds like Carol is giving the textbook explanation of the atonement.
Without reading the rest of the story, or how it pans out, i will say that this troubles me: “what Carol explained is just one of six theories. It’s called the ’substitutionary atonement’ theory. To me, it’s like…” - I gestured up toward the sky - it’s like trying to see the whole beautiful, majestic sky from one of your hospital windows.”
It might indeed be 1 of 6 teachings, but what teaching does the book point to as the correct one?
Also, what Carol described is what I would consider the biblical view of the atonement as presented throughout historic, orthodox, Christianity since the Reformation. (The only other option that would be in any way acceptable would be the “satisfaction” theory.)
Exactly HOW it works is indeed a mystery (I am speaking on a metaphysical level here) - but there is no doubt in my mind that Christ was our substitute, the second Adam through whom we receive life.
see http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_atone5.htm
Or, see H. Wayne House, “Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine”
May 13th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
McLaren does not deny SA… he just says there is more to it than just that. To say that all Jesus did was pay a price for our sin, means then we deny that in that he redeemed all creation… It is all that we then deny that He “learned obedience even unto death” and that “He was acquainted with our sufferings”… If all it was was a judicial act, we strip the fullness of “God so loving.”
What I am getting at is that there are more attributes to Jesus death on the cross than just the pure judicial one…
He paid a ransom… which is different than SA,
He was our substitute, (though actually He became Sin… not us on the Cross… Jesus died for our Sin…)
God used the Cross to show his Love for us and to move us to repentance by His kindness.
The Cross showed Jesus was fully human… and that by the power of the Holy Spirit, He came to free us from the Kingdom of Darkness.
The Cross teaches both redemption and a transformed life… for by it we find our sin and seek forgiveness and salvation.
Here is a good place to start with all the different overviews that were gone over historically.
To say it is “just SA” is just as wrong as to deny it….
iggy
May 14th, 2008 at 12:52 am
To play the guilty by association card ,didn’t Brian endorse Steve Chalke book The Lost Message of Jesus which definitely calls it cosmic child abuse..
Plus in Brian’s own book (haven’t read it) How does the character react to Kerry’s claim of cosmic child abuse? I heard its not refuted..
May 14th, 2008 at 1:43 am
Brian endorsed hundreds of books. Yet, an endorsment does not mean one agrees on every point. At least I do would not think so.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:01 am
I agree Iggy but combined with other things, it could be viewed as worrying?
May 14th, 2008 at 3:40 am
Yes - it was Steve Chalke who described the portrayal of PSA seen in many findamentalist churches as appearing like cosmic child abuse -please note the nuance in this. Not that Substiutionary Atonement is child abuse, not that PSA is ubibilical, but that the type of PSA popularly preached from pulpits appears in the context of 21st century western life to be child abuse.
Rick - Phil wasn’t defending MacLaren here, he was pointing out the dishonesty of the attack on him on this particular issue. Something that is wrong regardless of who it is against. Why do you refuse to see that?
May 14th, 2008 at 6:07 am
To answer Richard’s question, Kerry isn’t told that she’s wrong, per se, but she is instead told there are other ways to describe it. No one denies SA in the book. I think McLaren’s concern (and Steve Chalke from what I can tell) is that because of particularly bad descriptions of it, people get a view of God that is not necessarily Biblical.
I’ve gotten questions that go into this as well. For example, someone asked, “why does God ask us to forgive others, when he couldn’t do it without satisfaction of some sort”. Now I can answer, but it’s hard for me to answer that based on the theory of SA alone.
It’s one thing to disagree with McLaren based on something he actually says. I can point to a number of things I would disagree with him on. But to pick one sentence out of a book, which is novel, is really disingenuous. This is why people had problems with D.A. Carson’s book from the get-go. I find it telling that Ken doens’t quote the book directly, but he quotes a quote of McLaren’s. That pretty much tells me his whole argument is based on hearsay.
May 14th, 2008 at 6:31 am
I find it interesting that the earliest creeds don’t mention any particular descriptor of atonement. Instead they’re more interested in describing the historical fact of the death, burial and resurrection.
Nicene Creed:
and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.
Apostles Creed:
Was crucified, dead, and buried:
He descended into hell;
The third day he rose again from the dead:
He ascended into heaven,
And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty:
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
May 14th, 2008 at 6:46 am
My view of Brian Mclaren has always been that of the professor that asks the annoying questions that make you think. To ask a question, and to make others think does not make one a heretic. The issue becomes when others state that because someone asks the question the so believe the possibility of the answer….
Such as…
What if Jesus was not born of a virgin? (Rob Bell)
What if there is more to the Sub. Atone.? (Brian M)
What if people do view SA as cosmic child abuse? (Steve Chalke)
Yet, what if we never asked any questions… what if Tertullian never explored the possibility that there was the Trinity and thus coined the phrase we use so commonly, yet is ineffectual to properly express… meaning that it is actually a tri-unity not a trinity…
What if Athanasius and the other early church fathers never questioned which books would be part of the canon? In fact, many considered Hermas the Shepherd scripture in the early church. Why did they toss it out? Why did Revelation almost not make it into the canon? What if the Reformers never questioned Rome?
If we are to write someone off for asking questions, then we need write of Luther, Calvin, and… the list would go on for quite a while.
So to me, while he may be annoying at times, I think Brian is far from “speaking for Satan”… or whatever horrid thing Ken Silva and crew concocts for their web hit this week.
It seems more like some out there have become the new Vatican and instead of allowing us to think want to demonize others and slash people to pieces with their tongues… it is obvious they do not seek reconciliation as they do not even consider going to see what is going on for themselves… and if they do they seem to have such a different view from what they witness as in the case of Mike Corley…
I mean what is Ingrid really afraid of? What is Ken Silva afraid of? Loss of revenue if they find out they are wrong?… sort of sounds like the Pharisees not wanting to lose their positions and job security and getting Jesus crucified to secure themselves….
iggy
May 14th, 2008 at 6:51 am
hil,
I agree, and this worries me more as it shows that these people condone the sin of gossip… and will go to great lengths to avoid and find anything that remotely backs their views.
Again, Brian is a different type of writer… and he writes to a different audience than those in the “modernistic” mindset. That is why some have such a hard time with him as to them he sounds non committal, but to me and many others I hear him not going against historical orthodoxy, but embracing it in all its forms… sort of like his book Generous Orthodoxy… how can you embrace and be generous while also supposedly denying major parts of that same orthodoxy? It is nonsensical and not at all what I find in his books.
iggy
May 14th, 2008 at 7:31 am
I would also add that there is a categorical difference between saying substitutionary atonement “sounds like” or “comes off as” cosmic child abuse, and saying it is. I don’t even think Steve Chalke said it actually is.
May 14th, 2008 at 7:33 am
All the “creeds” are meaningless and should not be relied upon as sytematic theologies. That is not an argument “see what this creed says”. They may be wrong or at least incomplete. I used to mindlessly repeat them as an unsaved member of the Lutheran Church.
Both of them could be repeated by some cults, that is how general in nature they are.
May 14th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Rick,
Using creeds as scripture is a problem. But that’s not what I was doing. I was using the creeds as indicative as the early church’s attitude towards particular theologies concerning the cross.
May 14th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Yes, I too thought it odd that anyone would bring in the “creeds” as though they would somehow lend credibility to the argument. Interesting how the apostles’ creed wasn’t even put together by the apostles who lend their title to it!
May 14th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Ian i agree it could be read that way,but obviously the EA were concerned enough to call for him to explain himself…
Like Brian,Steve is very good at saying controversial things, i wonder if they do that to “ask questions” or to sell books?
Heres Steves full quote,that i take Brian agrees witht,i personally find it odd that people endorse things they don’t totally agree with..
May 14th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
oops
The fact is that the cross isn’t a form of cosmic child abuse—a vengeful father, punishing his son for an offence he has not even committed. Understandably, both people inside and outside of the church have found this twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith. Deeper than that, however, is that such a construct stands in total contradiction to the statement “God is love.” If the cross is a personal act of violence perpetrated by God towards humankind but borne by his son, then it makes a mockery of Jesus’ own teaching to love your enemies and refuse to repay evil with evil. The truth is the cross is a symbol of love. It is a demonstration of just how far God as Father and Jesus as his son are prepared to go to prove that love. The cross is a vivid statement of the powerlessness of love.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Andy,
Well even from that quote it seems like Chalke is pretty explicity saying “the cross isn’t a form of cosmic child abuse”, so I guess I’m left scratching my head about what the issue is. Is it just that Chalke and McLaren bring up the fact that some people might interpret a bad presentation of SA that way? If that’s case, it seems like a very weak argument to me. I admit I haven’t read Chalke’s book, so I am just going by your quote.
I think it gets back to fact that many of the ODM-type people who seem to take issue with these writers just don’t want to look past their own very narrow interpretations of things. It’s like they just can’t fathom that other people might see things differently than they do.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Andy ol’ bean,
These great “researchers” and defenders of the indefensible here at CRN.(Mis)Info are focused on but one minor piece of my over-all thesis. By the way, not only did I provide that full quote by Chalke right in my piece, I also use his own explanation of what he meant from another source.
It was only in passing that I mentioned the citation of McLaren’s book by Carson, who is a top notch scholar. That iggy would deem it “gossip” to cite Carson’s use of McLaren’s words is ludicrous.
And Miller seems to forget to mention that I also use McLaren’s endorsement of Alan Jones, who also denies the PSA as well. And in addition, I provide the primary source concerning what Jones says in his foolish book right within my post.
My piece is most certainly not at all built on McLaren’s book, not to mention that I even pointed out in my article that it is a book of “fiction”; just as Miller’s whining above is also fiction.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Hi Phill yes it can be read like that…
The book caused an uproar here in the UK,he was called to explain himself to the Evangelical Alliance…Also there was a split between Word Alive and Spring Harvest confrence,because one group had Steve speaking…
I think the main controversy : is he saying anyone who holds to “it pleased the father to bruise the son” were holding to a type of cosmic child abusing God..
That quote was enough for John Piper to respond directly to him :
“One of the most infamous and tragic paragraphs written by a church leader in the last several years heaps scorn on one of the most precious truths of the atonement: Christ’s bearing our guilt and God’s wrath . . .
With one cynical stroke of the pen, the triumph of God’s love over God’s wrath in the death of his beloved Son is blasphemed, while other church leaders write glowing blurbs on the flaps of his book. But God is not mocked. His word stands firm and clear and merciful to those who will embrace it.”
anyhow i degress (as usual)
May 14th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Phil my point in mentioning Steve, was only to show the quote iby Brian wasn’t isolated,that he had also endorced a book that said much the same..
But the more you invetigate things, it becomes clear the quotes can be read two ways (at least
May 14th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Andy,
OK, I guess I can see it…but the fact that Piper is upset about really means about nothing to me.
I actually heard John Piper say in his one talk at the Passion Conference that God “wants to kill you” and it is Jesus holding Him back. It’s no wonder people have a messed up view of God.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Oh, Ken,
I have Carson’s book, but I admit I couldn’t finish it since the whole thing was built on strawmen. Carson picks and chooses his quotes much like the one in your piece, and he really doesn’t prove anything.
I don’t see anyone outright rejecting Penal Substitution, just the particularly bad way in which it is talked about - God the Father as angry and condemning amd Jesus as having to hold Him back.
If you want to see some real scholarship on the issue, I suggest you look at Andrew Perriman’s handling of it here.
May 14th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Thanks, but no thanks in regard to Perriman’s postliberal views. My ears don’t itch and unfortunately you just see what you want to see.
May 14th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Whatever, Ken, did you even read the article? I don’t think you’ve even read any of the books you talk about.
May 14th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Ah the convoluted logic of Ken.
What the crap is “postliberal” anyway? I thought liberal = bad and post=after, so wouldn’t being postliberal mean you’re not liberal anymore?
May 14th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Phil - it is my opinion that you misinterpret MacLaren’s words about the atonement. I believe several men have similar views as well. The child abuse comment by Chalke and referenced by MacLaren in at least one interview is not a caution but a view. MacLaren seemed to say that comment should be given some consideration.
There are emergent men who reject MacLaren in part because of his view of the atonement which you are saying he is being misrepresented. I read part of the article you linked, but I am poisoned to MacLaren and, as Chris rightly noted about all of us sometimes, I read his words in a doctrinally uncharitable light. I did not begin that way two years ago, it has evolved through my understanding of the English language.
May 14th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Ah Rick, it’s jus’ cuz y’all ain’t been enlightened like them E-mergent boys has. Keep trying and you’ll receive their gnosis too; and then, ya’ll can be one of the elite Christians too.
Yeah, no cult-like mentality there - ha!
May 14th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Hmmm to be fair to Ken, i know he as the books he comments about..Because i would post them to him loadsssss from both camps too (its all my fault lol) …
May 14th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
I love it when Ken uses grown up words but seems to miss the meaning of them….
= )
iggy
May 14th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Rick,
Funny thing is many of us read Mclaren (most probably much more than his critics do) and do nto see this. In fact I see that Brian’s theology is much like N. T. Wright who is Reformed. To say NT Wright denies SA is a joke… and if you read McLaren and Wright together you can see what Brian is saying.
I also suggest reading GK Chesterton and try to find where he denies the SA… but you will see Chesterton’s influence on Brian’s writing also.
What I am getting at is Brian filters it through a post modern matrix and modernists can miss the nuance that runs through out his writings. I have seen whole criticism (many really) that miss one word… “just” as in “it is not just” and twist it all to mean “it is not”… they miss that the word “just” is “this but more” and not a denial of the said thing.
So truly before one critiques Brian, get better read up on NT Wright and Chesterton and a few others. Until then I think it unwise for someone to critique Brian…
iggy
May 14th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Well, Rick, I don’t know what else to say, really. I’ve read all of McLaren’s books, except a few of his early ones (which don’t talk about this issue at all), and I’ve never seen him deny Christ’s death and resurection. He even affirms the different views of the atonement. He just thinks that the most common one has the potential to be misunderstood in a bad way. I honestly don’t see the issue…
I don’t think he’s right in everything he says, for sure. But what good is debating an issue when you can’t even talk about the real facts. The only thing Ken seems to be able to present is hearsay, strawmen, and weak GBA attacks.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Iggy,
I think you’re the first person I’ve seen who’s called N.T. Wright Reformed. He’s Anglican, and I don’t think he really holds to Reformed theology. He definitely not a Calvinist, that’s for sure.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Phil,
He considers himself reformed…
I cannot find the particular lecture in which he states that. I have way to many. But if you go the NT Wright page, I suspect it is there somewhere. Maybe in the Romans in a day lecture or the Pepperdine lectures.
But i have heard him refer to himself as reformed though I would say he admits he has some different views from “some” of the reformed views.
My understanding of the Anglican Church is that they are also heavily influenced by Reformed theology.
iggy
May 15th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Iggy,
Well, I’ll take your word for it. I guess “reformed” is one of those words that means different things to different people. He definitely does not fit into what the ODM definition of Reformed is. His theology, from what I’ve read, fits in more in line with the Wesleyan tradition in a lot of ways.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
ODM’s have such a “narrow” understanding of what “reformed” is… yet they miss that it is very broad. You have Lutherans, Calvinist, and Presbyterian and on and on… all disagree on some parts.
Most would totally disagree with the ODM’s… and laugh at their lack of historical perspective.
iggy
May 15th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Wrights reformed? Hes church of england isn’t he?