In his fifth talk ”” “What’s Next?” ”” McLaren discussed how we could avoid the violence of the past. Quoting Gregory of Nyssa, a fourth-century theologian who defined sin as “refusal to grow,” McLaren outlined four stages of growth. Each stage has both strengths and weaknesses, and a basic outlook on life.
The first stage is black-and-white simplicity. People in this stage are highly committed and willing to sacrifice, and life is a war. Simplicity can be simplistic, arrogant, and prone to violence.
People in the second stage, complexity, believe there is always another way to do things. What is important is getting things done, so people in this stage are very pragmatic. Life is a game. Complexity carries with it enthusiasm and idealism, but can be superficial and naïve.
Perplexity is the third stage. When perplexity’s strengths of authenticity and honesty prevail, people see life as mystery or a search. When the weaknesses of perplexity ”” cynicism, lack of commitment, and depression ”” prevail, people see life as a joke. Ultimately perplexity says, “Who can know what is right?”
The fourth stage is harmony. It has the strengths of the earlier stages, along with stability, endurance and wisdom. It can have the weaknesses of earlier stages. Life is what you and God make of it. Rather than being the final stage in life, it is rather the place where a new cycle will begin, with a new simplicity headed toward a new humility.
About the author:
[blockquote] Charlie Clauss, who lives in Minneapolis, is an area director with InterVarsity Christian Fellowship’s Graduate Student and Faculty Ministry.[/blockquote]
Ugh. It is fine for a member of the TEClub to be duped by false prophet, Brian McLaren, but a member of Intervarsity? One would have hoped that he could see through this phony heretic.
I agree completely, Robroy. It’s a sign of the times that so-called evangelicals have so little theological discernment. McLaren is very weak (not to mention troubling) on basic Christian doctrine. If anyone reading this doesn’t know what I’m talking about, I’m willing to post direct quotes from McLaren’s books.
Is there something that Clauss or McLaren said in the linked article that offends? Or do we evaluate content strictly by author (Bruce McLaren is a “heretic” – and a “phony” heretic at that -, ergo, anything written about him, or at least anything that is not hostile, must be rejected).
I found both the link well written, interesting and useful. I particularly thought the idea of the Good News being a gift that must be lived outward to non-Christians a useful insight at the start of my Saturday.
Brian McLaren has a BA in English Lit. He is as qualified as Archbishop Rowan Williams was to lecture the US on global economics (immediately after Lambeth ’08 ended in a huge debt) and as qualified as PB Shori is in pastoral care and church leadership.
McLaren’s views in theology and ecclesiology are part academic (HIExpress University) theory and part opinion. McLaren is soft on homosex and Biblical chastity. All of these make him a perfect companion and teacher for Episcopalians, but shape the content of his lectures and writings. Nothing I have read or heard from McLaren has ever been congruent with the counsel of Scripture or the witness of the Holy Spirit. Even Mark Driscoll has opposed him, not to mention the other leading orthodox Christian theologians and pastors.
NoVA Scout – it is essential and necessary that the Good News be the actual true Gospel, not polluted, diluted or distorted by agenda or culture…not cheap grace, or false grace, not affirming and blessing the behaviors and feelings of the fallen flesh and natural mind.
Jesus didn’t come to OK, appease or make peace with us, with the world, our families, our friends, our perceived sexual identities, the orientations and desires of the human flesh. He came to show us the way we must travel to make peace with God and to pay the price of our ticket, to be the path of that peace. Jesus has called us to a completely opposite orientation – a complete reorientation, a completely new identity, to (in the power of God) overcome sin and crucify (kill) our fleshly desires and to desire God’s way of life and holiness and to leave the culture for a new community created for those who love God and who follow His Word (Scripture) and His Spirit. Crucifying the flesh is painful, hard, costly, but what we receive from God is the sweetness of holy communion/union and peace with Him. It is a huge bargain.
This is the consistent witness of Scripture and of the church of the ages (and of honest science research/clinical medicine, CDC statistics as well.) What God designed and commanded in Scripture is the best, holiest, happiest and healthiest way for individuals, marriages, families/children, nations. Sin can always can be translated ‘harm’.
The Episcopal Church and McLaren (and much of the Western church) have decided otherwise. Seems Intervarsity is buying into the compromise…bit by bit. Generous orthodoxy is compromise that causes misery, confusion and costs lives.
It would seem to me playing to the crowd in The People’s Republic of Minnesooota.
Bingo, NoVA scout. There isn’t anything in the article that offends, and that is the problem. He let’s the heretic off the hook. He lets the wolf into the pasture without giving a warning cry.
This is witness to what has happened to Living Church since the Covenant website crowd took it over and evicted the orthodox reporters. But such is life in the modern Episcopal church. This is the same thing that happened to the seminaries- first TEC moves in the “can’t we all get along” crowd, and then you will see a full on revisionist editorial staff.
I could never understand McLaren’s qualifications to lecture on things theological. He’s not even that good of a writer. However his first point: “The first stage is black-and-white simplicity. People in this stage are highly committed and willing to sacrifice, and life is a war. Simplicity can be simplistic, arrogant…” Would seem to be quite relevant.
Mr. McMahon #8 – Please calm down. TLC hasn’t and isn’t about to let the wolves into the sheep pen. I’m on the Board and the editorial staff has my complete confidence – for very good reason. Mr. Clauss actually does a fairly responsible job handling Mr. McLaren, identifying hopeful notes where he can and expressing doubt where the latter seems to be playing up overmuch to the prejudices of his audience (note what he says about the more questionable bits of his ecclesiology talk). I understand the problematic nature of Mr. McLaren’s muse and continue to be unimpressed – as I noted in some detail over on the Covenant site. Personally, I think that there are better things to talk about than Mr. McLaren’s seemingly fairly shallow views, though that they are so much less so than those of the TEC leadership is a matter of continual pain and no little embarrassment. Still, Mr. McLaren says herein some things that are worthy of discussion among the grownups – in which number I would confidently count the leadership of TLC – and hence of publication. I’m quite certain that if you have other suggestions for stories and/or articles, they will receive a fair hearing from TLC. Contact can easily be made through the TLC website. Best regards – DWM
I want to address the classification.
What evidence is there that those who hold ideas Brian McClaren might identify as “simplistic” are more prone to violence that those with ideas he might count as appropriately nuanced and complex?
In other words, as Rene Girard has argued, and as the Gospels seem to teach, the competitive human desire that may result in violence is universal. Jesus is, of course, condemned to death not by knuckle dragging, simpletons but by the most “sophisticated” thinkers in the Land. The Gospel seems to teach that healing begins not by coming to hold more “nuanced” or “complex” ideas but through faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. In other words, the wisdom that is to be won, is found by learning from the one who is Wisdom.
RE: “This is witness to what has happened to Living Church since the Covenant website crowd took it over . . . ”
Yes, and the moment that happened it was a foregone conclusion as to the 1) Primary Endless Topic, 2) the crop of writers who would be writing op-eds, 3) the decline in reporting quality, and 4) the general drift of the editorial content and slant. The only question was “how long until it’s obvious to many other readers.”
BUT . . . there are still some good folks involved, Dan Muth and others being among them. I suspect that the original plan — to try to appeal to the much-fantasized-about “Middle” and the “moderate Communion Liberals” — has been recognized by now to be a bit more of a slender audience than previously recognized — or at least, the consequences of that attempted appeal have been recognized in declining readership from the traditional side — and hasty tacks back to the other side have been engineered.
You’ve got to give them credit for trying stuff, even if you don’t agree with what is being tried.
Sarah – I appreciate being well thought of, but I’m a smidge concerned about the characterization of The Living Church as having been “taken over” by Covenant: 1) Christopher Wells, a founder of Covenant, was brought in as Executive Director upon the retirement of David Kalvelage, after a nationwide search; 2) the News Editor was replaced *prior* to Dr. Wells’ arrival; 3) TLC took over administration of the Covenant website, not the other way around. Given #1 above, it should hardly be surprising that Dr. Wells is continuing to work with people he is familiar with. Note also, however, that in the last year articles have been published by William Murchison, Stanley Hauerwas, +Mark Lawrence, +Fitz Allison, and many others who would not readily be identified with the middle, mushy or otherwise (Sarah, I would love to see you write for TLC – you are thoughtful and write well. I’d be happy to set up something with you offline if you’d like). Given #2, the news editing was bound to change regardless of who was brought in to head the ministry. I point out #3 to clarify a seeming misrepresentation.
Reasserters: please, please recognize that TLC is an ally and not a mouthpiece of our fatuous current leadership. The editorial staff has been as supportive as can be of South Carolina’s current stance against 815’s lawlessness – at no little cost among our current readership. Believe it or not, many liberals see TLC as having gotten more – not less – stridently conservative since Mr. Kalvelage retired. Continued support of the Communion Partners initiative will no doubt also have a cost.
And yet, the focus of each issue is less and less on matters of passing political moment (a lot of older readers who do not use the internet for news complain about the dearth of news coverage in recent issues), but on the Good News. It is recognized that some of the content has been heavily theological – but it is everywhere recognizably Christian theology, something TEC can boast less and less of (and yet the need for which among its membership remains). Yes, TLC’s roots are Anglo-Catholic, but the current masthead’s claim to be Catholic, Evangelical and Ecumenical is made in good faith. It rightly says absolutely nothing about being Progressive. The intent is to serve the Anglican Church here and abroad, not by appealing to “moderates” (whatever those are) but by robustly proclaiming the great Christian Tradition: biblical, intellectual, liturgical, and ecclesial. Doing so has never been an activity blissfully free of politics – the world is as human as it is fallen – but is what TLC understands to be its calling. I would like to think it will strike a responsive chord amongst the Anglican faithful.
Robroy:
I happen to have served with Charlie on the vestry at Messiah. And been his friend for many years. He is not duped by anything and is one of the better thinkers I have ever met. Evangelical isn’t really the right word to describe Charlie either.
Please get to know the man before you pass judgment. You may be surprised.
Peace.
If he is one of the “better thinkers” he would not give McLaren a pass, which he has done. I pass judgment only on that fact.
[blockquote]The first stage is black-and-white simplicity. People in this stage are highly committed and willing to sacrifice, and life is a war. Simplicity can be simplistic, arrogant, and prone to violence.[/blockquote] I believe he captured me very well. I would add that his four stage development is rather simple. We are really talking about sanctification. If McLaren wants a model of development he should try the what the church has used for years. These are the purgative, illuminative and the unitive stages. Benedict Groeschel has an excellent explanation of these stages in his book, “Spiritual Passages: The Psychology of Spiritual Development”.
RE: ” . . . please, please recognize that TLC is an ally and not a mouthpiece of our fatuous current leadership.”
I agree. I can’t imagine people not understanding or recognizing this.
RE: “And yet, the focus of each issue is less and less on matters of passing political moment (a lot of older readers who do not use the internet for news complain about the dearth of news coverage in recent issues), but on the Good News.”
And I agree here.
RE: “the characterization of The Living Church as having been “taken over†by Covenant . . . ”
Well — let me clarify for those who need it that I certainly do not think that tjmcmahon believes that Covenant swooped in upon TLC and engaged in a hostile takeover a la Michael Douglas in Wall Street.
What I suspect that he did mean in regards to “taken over” was the ethos and philosophy. And the remainder of your first paragraph illustrates tjmcmahon’s point.
But I think you may have missed my point. It’s really not mine to in any way imply that TLC doesn’t have the right to make the editorial decisions it wishes and to strike whatever tone it pleases. It does. It’s doing what it believes that it needs to do — and honestly I don’t know what on earth I’d tell them to do if I were suddenly asked for advice either.
The main differences are — as usual and as has been true for many years now — strategic and pragmatic. It is what it is.
I appreciate your kind words, Daniel. I’m thankful that you are in the various places in which you serve.
[blockquote]If McLaren — his lack of a VTS degree notwithstanding — can help us through these stages, restoring Jesus to the center of how we understand God’s mission, he may have at last found his God-given vocation within the Episcopal Church.[/blockquote] Discussions of TLF aside, is Brian McLaren someone TEC want’s as a spokesperson and a leader? The title of the article begs the question.”What Brian McLaren Can Teach Episcopalians”. This quote,”Similarly, McLaren opposes descriptions of the Atonement as ‘cosmic child abuse'” is misleading because the lead in comment makes it appear that McLaren embraces the traditonal concept of the atonement when in fact he doesn’t embrace it at all. robroy (#15) has said that Charlie Claus has given McLaren a pass #15. I agree and believe it is because he is in agreement. TEC is attracted to McLaren as a moth to a flame. This article by Trevin Wax is revealing.http://trevinwax.com/2010/02/18/why-brian-mclarens-new-book-is-good-for-the-emerging-church/. In order for TEC to embrace McLaren, TEC will be chosing to continue to walk away from sound doctrine.
Over on Covenant, Mr. Clauss generously directed my attention to [url=http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/article_print.html?id=86862]this article [/url] which I think clearly shows that he is not particularly taken in by Mr. McLaren. I think “Fr. Dale” is right that there is a moth-flame interaction here amongst people whose idea of not checking their brains at the door largely involves outsmarting their idea of a fundamentalist. Given that their idea of a fundamentalist is someone with the an IQ slightly lower than gravel, this sets the bar pretty low. I think Charlie Clauss knows that.
To be honest, I’m not terribly thrilled with the idea of drawing attention to the work of Mr. McLaren, who increasingly strikes me as a somewhat more systematic version of Matthew Fox – which makes his becoming a darling of the terminally adolescent TEC braintrust all the more likely. Yet Hope is a theological virtue and I suppose one should find it where one can and given the relative lack of obstreperously heretical content in the talks Mr Clauss discusses herein, there could be some lessons to be derived therefrom. I think that’s fair enough – as I think the criticism from theose who have already tired of the man’s revisionist schtick is well voiced. I would not hope that Mr. McLaren’s muse will become a TLC fixture and indeed would be quite surprised to hear from him again in these pages. There are so many better things to talk about.
TJ (#8),
I have no personal connection with TLC, but I think your charge that “the orthodox reporters” (presumably you mean Steve Waring) were evicted, and that TLC now has, or soon will have, “full on revisionist editorical staff” is wildly off the mark. I’m personal friends with Doug LeBlanc, who basically took Steve’s place and functions as TLC’s editor-at-large, and I can testify that Doug is fully orthodox and the farthest thing from a “full on revisionist.” I’m sorry if I’ve somehow misunderstood you, TJ, but I just don’t get where in the world that you get such a crazy idea.
As someone that David Kalvelage once invited to write a piece for TLC in support of the “New Reformation” that was clearly contrary to David’s own views, and having talked to Doug about this, I can assure you, and other T19 readers, that the usual journalistic caveat applies to TLC articles. Namely, not everything they publish necessarily represents the views of the editors. Thus, it shouldn’t be supposed that the TLC staff is somehow trying to cozy up to Brian McLaren or whitewash his numerous weaknesses.
David Handy+
David+,
What I said was
“This is the same thing that happened to the seminaries- first TEC moves in the “can’t we all get along†crowd, and then you will see a full on revisionist editorial staff.” If you are going to quote me, please use at least whole sentences so that people have some context to judge my remarks.
Now, I know nothing of agendas about trying to reach the so-called moderate institutionalists or communion liberals, if such things actually exist. I am not saying the current staff is revisionist. However, as TEC moves further and further in a revisionist direction, the paper will be forced to move in the same direction or lose its readership. Remember, 3 years ago, if you asked someone to name the 3 most conservative bishops in TEC, most likely you would have replied “+Iker, +Ackerman and +Schofield”. They are all Anglo Catholic. No more Anglo Catholic bishops in TEC, so I suppose I should not be surprised or disappointed that there is no Anglo Catholic paper either.
What surprises me in the current piece under discussion is that Charlie Clauss wrote it, and I’ve read enough of his commentary over the years to be quite surprised that he does not take McLaren to task for his lightweight and often erroneous theology. Judging from other things of his I’ve read, it is as though several paragraphs were missing. And, no, I am not suggesting that an unseen editor edited Clauss’s writing, just that if it was worth the time and effort to write the article, how come there is so little meat in it?
And if you all wish, just chalk my commentary down to my general disappointment over the fate of Anglo Catholicism in the 21st century. TLC has moved on to the world of women priests, open Evangelicals, and affirming catholicism, which is the modern TEC- even the “conservative” part of the modern TEC.
I had read the book review that Daniel had linked in #19. If one is aware of that review, then one is aware of the heresies of McLaren and that he truly is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Any piece written by a responsible Christian should begin with the denouncement, “McLaren is a deceiver.” McLaren’s new form of Christianity is simply old heresies discussed with hip language, wire-rim glasses, and blue jeans. One then can move on to analyzing what McLaren has to say in the present discourse.
“Brian McLaren has a BA in English Lit. He is as qualified as Archbishop Rowan Williams was to lecture the US on global economics….”
Is there a way to automatically filter out all the comments here by people who have fewer advanced degrees than I do? I hate to waste my time reading things written by people who by definition have nothing to teach me.
Thanks.
#21. I wonder. Is it possible that the Schori’s reign is coming to a slow, wavering decay, and that those who have followed blindly in the past will reconsider such a course? TEC finances are in worse than bad shape and Schori’s pronouncements have acquired an incongruity, and loss-of-center in recent months. There are still rationaol minds in TEC, and Robinson’s quitting may be more than symbolic. I am just guessing of course. Larry
Mr. McMahon #21 – I appreciate the concern and I recognize that this is not just a thread about the direction of TLC. The decision by the editors to discuss what Mr. McLaren has to say, given its highly dubious nature, raises a fair question with respect to the latter, however. Frankly, if a vast new readership were promised to come on board should TLC change her content to cheerlead lounge chair environmentalism, faddish [i]soi disant[/i] inclusivity, feminist finger-wagging and of course the knee-jerk embrace of all things lavender, well there might be some temptation along the lines you suggest. Doing so would bring in some leftie kudos, no doubt, but even True Believers won’t actually pay to read this stuff – they want to think of themselves as Christians after all. The way for TLC to survive is most distinctly [b]not[/b] by telling the aging flower children of TEC what they think they want to hear – we’ll leave that to the Brian McLarens of the world.
Note that the leadership of the seminaries actually believed the claptrap they started teaching. That was really their problem after all, not some desperate desire to be loved by incoming Lefties. We don’t have anybody – anybody – at TLC who believes any of the TEC leadership’s nonsense. Perhaps Mr. Clauss is guilty of being overly polite to theological ditzes. And perhaps the editorial troika at TLC goofed up in supporting him. If so, it was an aberration, not the norm.
Nobody owes TLC support, financial or otherwise. Nobody has a responsibility to subscribe. But I invite anybody who frequents this space to at least consider doing so. I think you’ll find it rewarding.
Mr. Muth,
(my recollection from reading your byline is that you are an engineer rather than a priest, but if I erred and it should be Dr. or Fr., please do forgive me- my steel trap memory has grown rusty in recent years)
Thank you for addressing my concerns in a serious manner. I expect that TLC will continue as the conservative voice in TEC. I hope and pray for your success so long as you maintain that focus.
#25. Daniel Muth,
[blockquote]Perhaps Mr. Clauss is guilty of being overly polite to theological ditzes. And perhaps the editorial troika at TLC goofed up in supporting him. If so, it was an aberration, not the norm.[/blockquote]
And that is the concern of some of us who have commented about the article. Thanks and peace.
TJ (#21),
I’m sorry that I seem to have misunderstood that your remark about revisionist leadership applied only to TEC seminaries and not to the staff of TLC. And your general pessimism about the imminent demise of old-fashioned Anglo-Catholicism (the 1928 BCP, anti-WO kind) is perfectly understandable. It’s not just the departure of the three remaining anti-WO bishops, but that even Nashotah House, while otherwise conservative, no longer teaches against WO. Now, with word that five CoE bishops are at last departing for the Ordinariate, the future for your historic kind of Anglo-Catholicism is bleaker than ever in the whole AC, and not just in TEC.
I can empathize with that. Of course, as long as dioceses like Albany and Dallas stay in TEC, the Catholic movement isn’t dead on this continent. But all this does remind me of Talkien’s masterful evocation of the long, slow departure of the Elves from Middle Earth. It hasn’t happened yet, but there will come a sad time when the High Elves have fully left Lothlorien and sailed across the sea, never to return. Such is the pathos of life in a fallen world.
In a conciliatory spirit,
David Handy+
David+
Thank you for your words. I have often used the Tolkien analogy myself. Yes, I suspect we are indeed preparing to sail off to a Western or an Eastern “See”. It had not occurred to me until recent years that the tradition I was born into, with seemingly millions of adherents worldwide in the 1960s, might not survive my own generation.
First, Thanks to Daniel Muth, and Saint Dumb Ox for defending me.
Second, InterVarsity remains committed to Orthodox, Biblical Christianity, so no worries.
Third, if you expect that every time someone of questionable theology is mentioned, they *must* be denounced, “get used to disappointment.”
I can understand why those of you who have left TEC don’t ultimately care that a TEC diocese invited Brian McClaren to speak. For you the issue of his orthodoxy is the primary matter. Fine. But as someone who just suffered through being the delegate to diocesan convention, where Jesus didn’t come up much, having someone talk about Jesus gets my attention.
Did he preach the “real” Gospel? Probably not. Might he have opened a door that *I* can walk through in the life of some Episcopalian? I hope this might be the case. I want to find that person to tell them that yes, God does love them, but that love is most clearly shown at the cross of Jesus, where Jesus died your (our) sins, and you can live in relationship with Jesus now, for real.
BTW, the post here of my article might have given the impression that it was only a few paragraphs long. The whole thing is here: http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2010/11/5/what-brian-mclaren-can-teach-episcopalians. You will see I did question several things he said.
Charlie Clauss
#30. ursus,
Charlie, The post here has a link to your entire piece (read it all) below the shorter version.
I disagree.
I agree with your statement but Brian McLaren would not agree with it. He calls the traditional understanding of the Atonement “cosmic child abuse”. Your lead in to this quote in your article makes it appear that he doesn’t agree with the portrayal of the Atonement as cosmic child abuse but in fact he does.