McLaren Lecture Notes

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

Is there any room for orthodoxy?

[Ed Pettibone]

[William Thornton]

Subject is mcclaren and his view of the bible.

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

I've actually met Brian McLaren on a couple of occasions, and had the opportunity to sit in on a small group roundtable discussion he facilitated during a conference I attended at Wesley Seminary in DC a few years back. I've read all of his books.

I'd say his view is evolving, based on his observation and study of what happens in the church. He examines what is happening with Biblical interpretation across the theological spectrum, and puts it into understandable terms. And I think, Keith, if you examine his written work, you'd see what he means by "correctable" when it comes to the Bible, more emphasis on current theology and accepted interpretation than on the text of scripture. I'd say his basic view is that current cultural paradigms demand a look at, and application of the Bible in a different way than allowed by traditional theological systems. I agree with that, to an extent. He makes both conservatives and liberals somewhat uncomfortable and I've never heard or read anything that suggests he doesn't accept a high view of scripture. I noted at the conference at Wesley that the participants who were attracted to his sessions tended to be more along the lines of the core group of "Emergent" churches, like the Mark Driscoll, Darrin Patrick, Chris Seay types described as theologically conservative but socially liberal, or the Pentecostal/Charismatic emergent groups, while the more "theologically liberal" emergent group tended to avoid his sessions.

His view comes out of traditional orthodoxy, so I consider him orthodox.

He hits the nail on the head, so to speak, with this quote:

"Our interpretations reveal less about God or the Bible than they do about ourselves. They reveal what we want to defend, what we want to attack, what we want to ignore, what we're unwilling to question..." (A New Kind of Christian, 50)

[KeithE]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: You are each more impressed with McLaren than I am even, though you react from very different bases. I believe I can find SBC professors and pastors writing in the 50's,60's,70's & 80's who said much of the same thing but with less offense.

I am thinking of Findly Edge, Wayne Ward, William Hendricks, John Hendrix, John Carter, Lavon Brown, Fisher Humphreys, John Newport, Ralph Elliott, Vernon Elmore, Yandall Woodfin, E. Glenn Hinson and a host of others such as my friends, Henlee Hulix Barnette and Wayne E. Oats.

Going out side of the SBC One would have to include Randolph Crump Miller, C. Ellis Nelson, D. Campbell Wyckoff, James Michael Lee and 8 other contributors to Modern Masters of Religious Education including Edge, and many many more. MASTERS was published in 1983. By the Religious Education Press, Birmingham Alabama.

[Sandy]

I'm not sure I'd agree with your assessment on McLaren's roots in inerrancy. One of his honorary doctorates is from a very conservative Baptist theological school and seminary in Canada, Carey Theological College, and Taylor Seminary, and I can't imagine they'd award a representative degree to someone who didn't hold at least a similarly high view of scripture. He's also served on the board of the Seattle School of Theology, a branch campus of Western Seminary which uses the term "inerrancy" in its doctrinal statement. I believe that school is also connected with Mars Hill Church and Mark Driscoll, which is quite compatible with the Southern Baptist view of scripture. I don't think his reference to learning from other documents diminishes his view of scripture, nor does he equate those documents with the authority that he accords to the canon.

In handling the Bible, at least from what I have read and heard, I see nothing to suggest that McLaren doesn't accept the inerrancy of scripture, though his emphasis is much more on practical aspects of its application, and not on the nature of the Bible itself. He doesn't wear inerrancy as a doctrinal badge, or an identity distinguishing factor in Christian community, but his teaching doesn't reflect a belief that there are errors in the text itself, or in its communication of principles.

And I don't see much in the way of similarity between McLaren's social liberalism, and the individuals in Ed's list. Most of those people were theological liberals, or close, and social traditionalists, turning churches into personal fiefs in a good ole boy network to claim ground in a closed off SBC leadership structure. They were committed institutionalists, and McLaren isn't even close. He wasn't particularly comfortable behind the pulpit of a very traditional-looking chapel at Wesley Seminary.

And whether you want to argue the point of his high view of scripture or not, McLaren does an awful lot toward taking Biblical principles and developing a theology and worldview that is genuinely literal in its practice, pointing out the hypocrisy of Evangelical conservatives who, in his view, often miss the point in their zeal for orthodoxy. I would share that perspective, for example, in asserting that a strictly Biblical worldview would be in opposition to most points of conservative, American, and "tea party" politics, than in regular agreement with them.

[KeithE]

[KeithE]